Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. BANFIELD: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to cases of suicide in Walsall and South London stated to be in consequence of transitional benefit being disallowed; and whether he will make inquiries into the circumstances which led to benefit being stopped?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): In the case in South London which I think the hon. Member has in mind, a claim for transitional payments was disallowed unanimously by a fully constituted court of referees on the ground of failure to satisfy the condition requiring the claimant to prove "that he is normally employed in, and will normally seek to obtain his livelihood by means of, insurable employment." I have no knowledge of any such case at Walsall, but I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. THORNE: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour what amount is being deducted from the sale of produce from allotments held by registered unemployed men at Marlborough, Wiltshire, by the local means test committee; and what amount per diem is allowed per person which is non-assessable?

Mr. HUDSON: This is a matter within the discretion of local authorities, and the particulars asked for are not in my possession.

MINE WORKERS.

Mr. CURRY: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest available figures showing the number of mine workers at present unemployed?

Mr. HUDSON: At 18th December, 1933, there were 210,371 insured persons in the coal mining industry classification in Great Britain recorded as wholly unemployed, and 53,254 temporarily stopped.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: What proportion of these men does the hon. Gentleman think are actually qualified for coal mining?

Mr. HUDSON: I think the overwhelming majority.

EAGLE OIL AND SHIPPING COMPANY (NEW OIL TANKERS).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the number of people who are likely to be employed, directly or indirectly, as a result of the orders placed by the Eagle Oil and Shipping Company for six 11,000-ton new oil tankers?

Mr. HUDSON: I regret that I have no information on this matter.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Major CARVER: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet considered the arrangements to be made for the registration of agricultural workers under the Unemployment Bill; and whether he will give an assurance that they will not be expected to attend at Employment Exchanges far distant from their homes, but that there will be some simplified form of machinery to enable them to conform in this respect with the regulations?

Mr. HUDSON: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the provisions of Part I or those of Part II of the Bill, the latter of which will be under the control of the proposed Unemployment Assistance Board. While no definite arrangements have yet been made, I can assure him that the point he mentions will be carefully kept in mind.

NORTHERN IRELAND (RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT).

Mr. HEALY: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the practice adopted at Northern Ireland courts of referees, when an insured person out of work removes there from Great Britain, of refusing him unemployed benefit on the ground
that he has rendered himself unavailable for work by leaving the country where he was employed; if a similar course is adopted by the courts of referees in Great Britain in the case of the transfer of an insured unemployed person from Northern Ireland; if there is a reciprocity agreement in the matter between the Northern Ireland and the imperial Governments; and, if so, will he see that it is carried out?

Mr. HUDSON: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The reciprocal agreement with the Ministry of Labour for Northern Ireland is to the effect that contributions and benefit paid in either country shall be taken into account in the other country, and this agreement is fully observed.

Mr. HEALY: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries through his officials as to the decisions of the courts of referees in Northern Ireland?

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to give me particulars of any cases which he has specially in mind, I shall be very glad to go into them.

Mr. HEALY: I will do that.

BENEFIT (ECONOMY CUTS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the improved financial position of the country and the increase in the number of employed, with consequent reduction in the cost to the State in unemployment benefit, he will consider the advisability of restoring the cuts in unemployment benefit which were made as a measure of economy in 1931?

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the unemployed will have preference when any restoration of the economy cuts is made?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I cannot add anything to the full statements I made during the Debates on the Second Reading of the Unemployment Bill and on the Financial Resolution in connection with that Bill.

BUILDING TRADE (WAGES).

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour if wages in the building trade are to be increased this month; and, if so, what percentage the rate of wages, respectively, of a builder's labourer, a bricklayer, and a painter in the London area will bear to the rates in 1914?

Mr. HUDSON: The rates of wages in the building trade are regulated by agreement between the employers' and workers' organisations, and, so far as I am aware, there is no increase of wages this month.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what are the present rates, which was what I asked him for?

Mr. HUDSON: I can give them, but the hon. Member asked whether the rate of wages had been raised. The second part of the question does not arise.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that my own information is incorrect and that there is no increase in wages this month?

Mr. HUDSON: So far as I am aware there is no increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC NOISES (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. McENTEE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of prosecutions that have taken place during 1933 with regard to noisy road vehicles; and whether, in view of the increasing noise of certain types of vehicles, it is proposed to issue any new orders to secure an abatement of this nuisance?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Preliminary figures show that during 1933 in England and Wales, 9,653 noise offences of all classes in connection with motor vehicles were dealt with by prosecution. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has already consulted me on the matter and is, I understand, taking it up with the manufacturers.

PEDESTRIANS.

Major THOMAS: 19.
asked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken by
the authorities to protect pedestrians crossing the street at those points where one-way continuous traffic has been established?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Protection is provided by means of warnings intended to draw pedestrians' attention to the fact that the street is a one-way working. These warnings take the form of "Look left" and "Look right" signs on the carriage-way and of prominent signs bearing the words "One Way Street" affixed to lamp standards and refuges.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Does the Minister regard the present warning signs as adequate, in view of the large number of accidents that occur at these points?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The whole of this problem is under consideration by the Government.

Mr. BATEY: Is it not time to take strong action against motorists who pay no attention to traffic lights? This morning in Oxford Street the state of affairs was disgraceful.

FACTORY ACTS (CONSOLIDATION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to introduce during the present Session a Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the laws relating to factories?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I see no prospect of such legislation this Session.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the great necessity for consolidating these Acts of Parliament, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision, at any rate so far as consolidation is concerned?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Department's point of view no doubt is that they would be very glad to have such a Bill, but Parliamentary time is fully occupied.

BETTING AND GAMBLING (LEGISLATION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 14.
asked the Home Secretary when it is proposed to introduce a Bill to deal with betting and gambling?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Soon, I hope, but I am not in a position to be more precise than that.

Mr. DAVIES: If I put a question down in about a fortnight's time, could the right hon. Gentleman be a little more precise then?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Gentleman had better put it down.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether totalisators on dog-racing tracks will be dealt with in the Bill?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I could not anticipate the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman likely to bring the Bill in during this Session, and before the Summer Recess?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes, Sir.

JUVENILE COURT, CROYDON (PROSECUTION).

Mr. CADOGAN: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on 18th January of this year a Scots Guardsman was charged at the Croydon Children's Court for desertion, and whether he will give the House an undertaking that in future serving soldiers, whatever age they may be, shall not be charged in children's courts?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that a youth of 16 was charged at the Croydon Juvenile Court as stated. As my hon. Friend will be aware, Section 45 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, provides that, subject to certain exceptions not applicable to this case, no charge against a person under 17 shall be heard by a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a juvenile court. I have no power to vary this provision of the law.

Mr. CADOGAN: Is not this a significant commentary upon the recent raising of the age of the children's court; and would the Government consider establishing children's courts-martial, so as to keep the licentious soldiery separate from the other children?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Parliament fully discussed this question?

ARREST, ILFORD.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the arrest on Boxing Day of Sidney Alfred Baker, an Ilford baker's roundsman, for non-payment of rates amounting to £3 15s., and his detention in the holiday week, although his two young children were dying, and in fact did die during his detention; whether warrants for arrest are executed on public holidays; and whether he proposes to investigate the facts of the case to stop in future any similar hardship to private citizens?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have already made inquiries into this case. I am informed that the commitment warrant was received by the police on the 23rd November, and the police officer charged with its execution visited Mr. Baker's address on more than 10 occasions during the following month, but was unable to see him. The purpose of the visit was explained to Mrs. Baker soon after the receipt of the warrant, but no communication from Mr. Baker was received by the police, and it was not until the 26th December that the officer succeeded in finding him at home. The officer bad no knowledge that the children were ill, and I am assured that if these circumstances had been brought to his notice he would have taken further instructions before executing the warrant. In view of the difficulties sometimes experienced in tracing persons who may seek to evade arrest, it would be impracticable to lay down any general rule against executing such warrants on public holidays; but I am satisfied that the police do their best to avoid inflicting undue hardship in cases of this kind.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider amending the law with regard to the imprisonment of these small debtors?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the House knows, a Parliamentary Committee is sitting to consider the whole of this problem.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: When can we hope to get a report?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot say.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Viscountess ASTOR: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed
to introduce legislation on the lines of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Shop Assistants, or of that unanimous part of their recommendations relating to the limitation of hours of work of young persons?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Bill promised in the King's Speech to regulate the hours of employment of young persons in the distributive trades is now being finally considered, and I hope that it will be possible to introduce it at an early date.

Viscountess ASTOR: Thank you.

Viscountess ASTOR: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to bring before Parliament at an early date a resolution authorising local authorities to make by laws relating to the hours and conditions of employment of juveniles?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have informed the Noble Lady on previous occasions, it is not the intention of the Government to take any steps to bring into operation Section 19 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Government promised upstairs, in the Committee on the Children Bill, that they would bring in a Bill to regulate the hours of work of children in unregulated trades. They gave us a definite promise.

Sir J. GILMOUR: That promise was no doubt given, but was qualified with the statement "when the industrial situation improves."

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that this House, of all Houses, wants children penalised by long hours because of the industrial situation? Does not he realise that if the Government would take the lead there are hundreds—I could guarantee 200—of hon. Members who would follow them into the Lobby in order to protect the hours of juveniles in unregistered trades?

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that the industrial situation has not improved?

STEAMSHIP "DUNBAR CASTLE" (DEATH).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 20.
asked the Home Secretary what action, if any,
he proposes to take in regard to the death of William McDonald, of Lime-house, due to asphyxia after being in charge of operations with an oxyacetylene super-warmer on the "Dunbar Castle"; and if any other cases of a similar nature have been brought to his notice?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The operation was of a very unusual character, and no similar case appears to have come to the notice of the Home Office. It is proposed to publish in the series of notes on industrial accidents, which has a wide circulation among firms likely to be affected, an account of this case, drawing attention to the danger now revealed and the necessary precautions. I will consider whether any other action is called for.

DRUNKENNESS (BLOOD TEST).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the new blood-test system for alcoholism; and whether the Home Office will consider its adoption?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the test to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I presume that he has in mind its adoption in cases where drunkenness is an element in a criminal charge; but I doubt its value for such a purpose, and I have no power to require any person to submit to it.

WAREHOUSE COLLAPSE, HULL.

Brigadier-General NATION: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether any inquiry is being held as to the causes of the collapse of a warehouse in Tower Street, Hull, on the 18th January, whereby a number of persons were killed and others seriously injured; and whether any compensation will be given to dependants who are now destitute?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, the Factory Department are actively investigating the matter and keeping in close touch with the operations of removing the debris. I am advised that it is unlikely that any definite conclusions can be reached till the debris has been cleared, and the coroner has, I understand, adjourned the inquest pending further progress of these operations. I have no information on the point raised in the latter part of the question.

Brigadier-General NATION: Is there normally any annual inspection of factory buildings of this kind, where large numbers of men are employed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should have to have notice as to whether this particular factory was inspected, but I imagine that all factories are inspected from time to time by the factory inspectors.

AIR DEFENCE (GAS MASKS AND SHELTERS).

Mr. DIXEY: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the public anxiety regarding precautions against possible gas attack, he will state whether a satisfactory gas mask has been approved for defensive purposes and, if so, where can these be obtained; and whether the Government have considered any plan for the utilisation of underground shelters as a defensive precaution against gas attacks?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 23rd November last to questions by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) and by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), and to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the 18th December to the hon. and gallant Member for the Ardwick Division of Manchester (Captain Fuller).

PROCESSIONS AND DEMONSTRATIONS.

Mr. STOURTON: 25.
asked the Home Secretary if, in view of the past experience of disorder created on a similar occasion, he will, in the interest of the public and of the unemployed themselves, take steps to prevent the large-scale demonstration of unemployed from all parts of the country, organised by the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, to take place in London on 25th February?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of any provisions in the existing law by which processions can be prevented from marching to London provided that they are orderly and well behaved. The right of holding peaceful meetings and processions is one of the most cherished rights, but, if this right were to be abused
in such a way as to lead inevitably to grave disorder or public disturbance, the Government would have to ask Parliament for such further powers as experience might show to be necessary to deal with such demonstrations.

Mr. STOURTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this march is a cruel exploitation of the unemployed by the Communist party for their own purposes?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

DANGEROUS DRUGS.

Dr. HOWITT: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the retail sale of drugs of the barbituric group is permitted without restriction; whether he has made inquiries as to the situation; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: These drugs are included in Part I of the present Poisons Schedule, and are, therefore, subject to the full restrictions imposed by the Pharmacy Act, 1868, upon the sale of poisons. The question whether any further restrictions are desirable will be considered by the Poisons Board recently established under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is there any system of inspection? Has the Department any officers to see that these Acts are properly administered; and is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are wholesale complaints against the easy way in which these drugs can be obtained?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The law makes certain provisions. As I have said, the new advisory body which has been set up will investigate whether further steps are required.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Can my right hon. Friend say how soon we shall get some report from the Poisons Board? Shall we have to wait for an annual report, say 15 months hence, or shall we have an early report on this, which is a very disturbing feature of the present situation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like notice of that question.

IMPORTED BOXED BEEF (INSPECTION).

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered complaints with regard to boxed beef imported into this country to the effect that the absence of bones or glands makes effective veterinary inspection impossible; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I have not received any such complaints as the hon. Member refers to. The importation of boneless meat which affords insufficient means of identification with definite parts of a carcase is prohibited by the Imported Food Regulations, and under the amending Regulations of last year official certificates of inspection at the time of slaughter are now required, subject to certain exceptions, with any imported meat less than the whole carcase.

WATER SUPPLIES (RURAL AREAS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether provision will be made in the Bill, shortly to be introduced, dealing with grants for water supply in rural areas, to enable local authorities and statutory water companies who have a surplus of water within their areas, to supply water in bulk to other areas beyond their authorised limits of supply, with the approval of the Ministry of Health?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. It is considered desirable to limit the scope of the proposed Bill to the authorisation of grant, and not to deal therein with amendments of the general law. A local authority has power now to purchase water from an adjoining local authority.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a number of local authorities and water companies with surplus water, but that, owing to the law at the present time, they are unable to supply adjoining water undertakings which are short of water? Surely there would be no objection in this House to the insertion of a single Clause to deal with that matter?

Mr. LEVY: Does not this emphasise the need for regional area control, and is not mal-distribution one of the causes of shortage of water in various areas?

Sir H. YOUNG: The law is substantially as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), but this is a different aspect of the question from that which will be dealt with by the promised legislation. I would call my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that it is covered by a specific Bill which is now being introduced in another place.

Mr. LEVY: May I have an answer to my supplementary question?

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 51.
asked the Minister of Health the number of rural local authorities which have submitted requests for financial assistance to provide local water supplies; and whether he has estimated the aggregate cost of regional or local schemes to provide an adequate supply for every local authority in England and Wales?

Sir H. YOUNG: Seventy rural local authorities have made inquiries as to the availability of grant. As regards the second part of the question, such an estimate could not be made except in presence of full information as to the cost of schemes.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is there not sufficient evidence to warrant the Minister giving much more substantial encouragement, so that, if necessary, a large instalment of the programme can be put into effect this year?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. I have good reason to suppose that the proposed grants will enable us to get useful work done.

HOP-PICKERS' ACCOMMODATION, HEREFORDSHIRE AND WORCESTERSHIRE.

Mr. ALAN TODD: 35
asked the Minister of Health (1) the names of the farms complained of in the report of the Staffordshire County Council's Education Committee on the conditions obtaining in the hopfields in Herefordshire and Worcestershire;
(2) what steps he proposes to take to render conditions in the hopfields of Worcestershire and Herefordshire such that the Staffordshire Education Committee may make the school holiday period coincide with the hop-picking season so that children from South Staffordshire may, without injury to their
health and morals, be allowed to take their holidays in the hopfields;
(3) whether his attention has been drawn to a report of the education committee of the Staffordshire County Council with reference to the living conditions of hop-pickers from South Staffordshire while working in the hop-fields in Worcestershire and Herefordshire; and what steps he proposes to take whereby conditions in these hop-fields may be made suitable for hop-pickers and their families?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have seen the report in question, and I am communicating with the Staffordshire County Council in regard to the names of the farms complained of which have not yet been disclosed. The responsibility for supervising the accommodation provided for hop-pickers rests with the local sanitary authorities, but my officers inspect the more important hop-growing areas from time to time, and any serious defect in the arrangements made for hop-pickers is brought to the attention of the local authority responsible for the matter.

Mr. TODD: Will the Minister press the Staffordshire County Council to divulge the names of these farms, in view of the particularly bad report which they have issued?

Sir H. YOUNG: Undoubtedly, a report having been made on the farms under the names of A, B and C, if any effective steps are to be taken, the names of the farms must be disclosed to me.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that these are not farms in Staffordshire, but are in surrounding counties where our people go?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is very desirable that the locality of the farms should be cleared up.

CINEMATOGRAPH ACT (PROSECUTION, RAMSGATE).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 27.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to a recent prosecution at Ramsgate in which it was held that the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, did not apply to a performance given before 70 children in a room 12 feet by
13 feet lined with matchboard because the film itself was non-inflammable; and whether he proposes legislation to strengthen the Cinematograph Act so as to cover cinematograph performances for which money is taken?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have under consideration the question of introducing amending legislation to deal with the matter.

POOR LAW RELIEF (STATISTICS).

Mr. McENTEE: 28.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on the last available date, giving separate figures for men, women and children, and comparable figures for the same period last year?

Sir H. YOUNG: The total number of persons, men, women and children, in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales, excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals, on Saturday, the 13th January, 1934, was 1,406,076, and on Saturday, the 14th January, 1933, 1,391,185. The weekly returns from which these figures have been obtained do not distinguish the numbers of men, women and children, but I will, if he desires, send the hon. Member a statement showing separately the numbers of men, women and children in receipt of poor relief on 1st January of the two years when the detailed returns relating to this year are available.

Mr. McENTEE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. May I ask him if he will confer with the Minister of Labour, with a view to the publication of these figures side by side with the figures of the Ministry of Labour for unemployment?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. CHORLTON: 31.
asked the Minister of Health if he will introduce legislation at an early date to deal with the question of adequate compensation for small shop-keepers dispossessed and losing goodwill in any slum clearance area?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. Section 41 of the Housing Act, 1930, confers on local authorities the power of paying allowances in the circumstances mentioned, and I understand this power to be generally used to meet any substantial case of hardship.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is no action at all being taken? Is any question of compensation to be left entirely to the local authorities?

Sir H. YOUNG: The present state of the law is that it is within the power of the local authority to make special grants for compensation in these circumstances, and as a matter of fact, as my hon. Friend is probably aware, wide use is made of those powers.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that these powers are only optional, and that ill-disposed councils do not make proper use of them?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Those would be Tory councils.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

Major NATHAN: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in response to his Circular 1331, dated 6th April, 1933, he has now received from the London County Council detailed particulars as to the unhealthy areas to be cleared or improved by the London County Council and the Metropolitan borough councils under the Housing Act, 1930, during the next five years?

Sir H. YOUNG: The detailed particulars of the areas to be dealt with by the London County Council and the Metropolitan borough councils are now in preparation but have not yet been received.

Major NATHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the activities of the London County Council are commensurate with the urgency of the problem?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am certainly satisfied that the matter is receiving the serious and adequate consideration of the County Council.

OVERCROWDING (WEDNESBURY AND DUDLEY).

Mr. BANFIELD: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the overcrowding in the Black Country and
the long waiting lists for houses in Wednesbury and Dudley; and whether, in view of the failure to build houses under the 1933 Act, he will introduce a Bill to give financial assistance to town councils desirous of building houses to be let at rents which the working classes can afford to pay?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware that there is overcrowding at Wednesbury and Dudley. In reply to the second part of the question, any local authority, the needs of whose area are not, being met by private enterprise, are free to build any houses required, and at the present time they can do so at very low cost.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give particulars of cases where private enterprise has failed to provide houses and, in consequence, the local authority has exercised its duty to provide the houses required?

Sir H. YOUNG: Since May last, when the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, became law, approval has been given to the erection of houses without subsidy to 53 local authorities. These proposals comprise 1,698 houses, and, before approval was given, the authorities concerned satisfied me that there was no likelihood of the houses being provided by private enterprise.

Mr. JOEL: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state the number of arrangements which have been made by corporations with private building firms for the erection of working-class houses to be let and not sold; and the numbers of such houses which are being constructed under these arrangements?

Sir H. YOUNG: The number of arrangements made under Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, was at 31st December last 18. They covered 1,033 houses. The total number of houses contemplated for inclusion in arrangements by local authorities at that date was 16,100, and I understand that arrangements covering 3,780 houses are in course of negotiation.

Mr. JOEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the working of private enterprise under the 1933 Act?

Sir H. YOUNG: This question relates only to the use of the guarantee to the building authorities. It is a new scheme with many novel provisions and, as they become better known, fuller use will, no doubt, be made of the scheme.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress he is making to do away with slums after being in office for 2½ years?

SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT (LOAN INTEREST).

Sir RICHARD MELLER: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the continuing low rate of interest prevailing, he will consider making such arrangements as may lead to a reduction in the rate of interest on loans obtained under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act when interest rates were much higher?

Sir H. YOUNG: The rate of interest for advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts was reduced to 4 per cent. by order dated 11th May last as regards advances on and after 1st June, 1933. Orders fixing the rate of interest cannot apply to advances already made. The rates applying to such advances were fixed in relation to the rates at which the local authorities were themselves able to borrow at the time the advances were made, and cannot now be reduced.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Order simply means that the local authority must provide 90 per cent. of the value of the house?

Sir H. YOUNG: The 90 per cent. is not the figure in question.

BUILDING COSTS.

Major NATHAN: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number, average cost per house, and average cost per superficial foot, respectively, of A-type non-parlour houses (excluding small houses erected for aged persons under the Housing Act, 1930, and non-parlour flats) included in direct labour schemes, and in contracts let by local authorities in England and Wales, during the months of December, 1932, November, 1933, and December, 1933, respectively?

Sir H. YOUNG: Since the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the particulars desired by the hon. Member so far as direct labour schemes and contracts let by local authorities in England and Wales other than the London County Council are concerned.

Month.
Number of houses of type indicated.
Average cost per house.*
Average cost per superficial foot.




£
s.
d.


Dec., 1932
4,228
296
8
0¾


Nov., 1933
2,564
301
8
2¾


Dec., 1933
1,979
298
8
2¼


* Including the cost of paths, drains and fences, but excluding the cost of land, roads, sewers and architects' fees.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: 49.
asked the Minister of Health the latest average price of an unsubsidised three-bedroomed parlour house, respectively, in London, in the provinces, and in rural areas; and the economic rental in each case?

Sir H. YOUNG: The total cost of such a house as my hon. Friend describes should not exceed £450 near London or £420 in provincial districts, whether urban or rural. The economic rental, excluding rates, of such houses depends upon the actual cost, including the cost of borrowing, but on the basis of a loan at 3½ per cent. for 60 years, should be approximately 9s. and 8s. 7d. per week respectively.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: As the right hon. Gentleman said that the prices do not exceed these sums—I asked for the average price—may we take it, therefore, that the average price is lower than the prices which he has given?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, I imagine that would be so.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: 50.
asked the Minister of Health what proportion of the cost of a house is due to building labour; whether he is in communication with the Minister of Labour on the subject of rates of wages; and whether he will consult those concerned in the building industry with a view to avoiding, so
far as justice lies, any increase in the cost of house-building for the working classes?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am advised that approximately 40 per cent. of the building cost may be taken to be the proportion spent in labour on the site. Expenditure on land, roads, sewers and fees has not been taken into account in this calculation. Building costs are constantly under the consideration of a committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade and myself which includes representatives of the building industry. As regards rates of wages, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply already given by the Minister of Labour.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is it not the case that the costs being inquired into by the committee do not include the cost of wages; and will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question as to whether he will consult the building industry on the subject of wages?

Sir H. YOUNG: Wages in the first place are matters for the Ministry of Labour, and, whatever aspect requires to be taken into consideration, I can assure my hon. Friend that the necessary consultation will take place.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of his predecessors in office stated in this House that two-thirds of the rent of a house went in paying interest on loans, and will he turn his attention to that aspect of the case before touching wages?

UNDERGROUND ROOMS.

Major NATHAN: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now obtained any particulars as to the number of underground rooms habitually used as sleeping places in the administrative county of London that are unfit for human habitation within the meaning of Section 18 of the Housing Act, 1925?

Sir H. YOUNG: No full estimate of the present position is available, but I am asking the London County Council to make inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as practicable.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: In view of the large number of children who undoubtedly live in these rooms, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the foundation of open-air nursery schools in these districts?

Sir H. YOUNG: That question should be addressed to the President of the Board of Education.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. JOEL: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the successful summons by Eleanor Peters, of Peel Street, Crewe, against Whitfields, Limited, ladies' tailors, of Wolverhampton, for an amount which she claimed was due to her under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, in view of their failure to stamp her late husband's health insurance cards; and whether, in view of the importance of this case to many similar persons, he will himself carry a test case to the higher courts?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I gather from a published report of the case that the employers are themselves proposing to appeal to the High Court.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 41.
asked the Minister of Health what answer has been returned to representations from any section of the medical profession for the restoration of the 1s. per insured patient per annum taken from panel doctors in the autumn of 1931?

Sir H. YOUNG: My answer has been that the 10 per cent. deduction made from the remuneration of insurance practitioners in 1931 was part of the Government's general scheme of economy covering the whole field of public expenditure; and that any question of restoring the cuts must be considered as a whole. I may also refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 29th November last to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North.

BOUNDARIES INQUIRY, DURHAM.

Mr. CURRY: 40.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state the approximate date by which he hopes to conclude his inquiry in connection with the boundaries within the County of Durham as well as the date by which he expects to be able to announce his awards; and whether, in view of the fact that the
forthcoming elections may be rendered abortive by the alterations of the boundaries, he intends to take any steps to postpone the elections in order to save avoidable expense?

Sir H. YOUNG: The inquiry was adjourned to enable me to give a ruling on important submissions made by the county council. The time of the conclusion of the inquiry and the announcement of decisions must depend on the length of the proceedings, which should not take much more time. The prolongation of the proceedings has not affected the elections, because any alterations of areas could not be brought into effect this year.

LORD PRIVY SEAL.

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is able to make a statement with reference to the duties to be performed by the Lord Privy Seal?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): My hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will continue to assist my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, particularly so far as concerns the representation of His Majesty's Government at Geneva.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Lord Privy Seal be a member of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Disarmament?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not customary to mention the names of Cabinet Sub-Committees, but I can assure the hon. Member that we are very well aware of the importance of having on Cabinet Sub-Committees those who are experts and most acquainted at first hand with the problems we are discussing.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman says the Lord Privy Seal will assist the Foreign Secretary at Geneva. Does that mean that before he was Lord Privy Seal he was not assisting him?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, seeing that they have not a woman in the Cabinet——

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INTER-IMPERIAL TRADE (COMMITTEE).

Dr. HOWITT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he now intends to set up an inter-imperial trade committee such as was envisaged by the High Commissioner for Australia a few months ago?

The PRIME MINISTER: The position remains as indicated in the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend in reply to a question which he addressed to me on 12th December last.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Sir J. LAMB: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the increase in imports to this country of general earthenware from Japan; and if he will state what steps are being taken to protect British industry and pottery workers against this competition made possible by a low standard of wages and a depreciated currency?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The imports of earthenware from Japan are small in comparison with the amount produced in this country and since the imposition of the specific duty of 25s. per cwt. in 1933 they have been steadily diminishing. The position is, however, being carefully watched.

MILLING INDUSTRY (FLOUR IMPORTS).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that foreign flour is being imported into this country and sold at between 5s. and 6s. below the cost of production of similar quality flour produced in Great Britain, and that in consequence of this employers must consider the stoppage of their mills in order to allow stocks to liquidate, which would throw out of employment a large number of persons in addition to many being placed on halftime work; and, in view of this, what steps the Government propose to take to deal with this competition?

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 88.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to deal with importations of flour from foreign countries, assisted by indirect subsidies, which is being sold at a price level below that obtaining in the countries of origin; and
whether he is aware of the injury caused to the home milling industry by such importations, in consequence of which flour mills in the north-west area have been compelled to close down owing to accumulation of stocks?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts to which my hon. and gallant Friends have called attention. The whole question is receiving careful consideration.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: May I ask whether such subsidised dumping as is going on in the case of flour comes within the terms of the treaties with the countries concerned? Is there anything in the treaties by which such dumping can be stopped; and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that there is a revision of the treaties in order to prevent further dumping?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have any reliable data on the subject, I will take it into consideration.

Colonel ROPNER: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the imports of French flour for each of the last three months for which figures are available, and the respective total flour imports in those periods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The desired information will be found on page 9 of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for those months.

COAL IMPORTS, BELGIUM (DUTY).

Mr. NORTH: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any investigation has been made into the legality of the recent 10 per cent. tax per ton imposed by Belgium on imported coal; and whether any protests have been made against the imposition of this tax so far as it affects British coal imports into Belgium?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that Belgian coal importers have consulted counsel as to the legality of the tax. As regards the second part of the question, the tax applies to imports from all countries without discrimination and there is no ground for an official protest on the part of His Majesty's Government.

SPAIN (BRITISH MOTOR CARS).

Mr. TURTON: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now able to make a statement with regard to the grant by the Spanish Government of a 35 per cent. rebate in customs duties on imported British motor cars; from what date the rebate will operate; whether the Spanish Government have granted the rebate in consequence of Article 5 of the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of 1922 and Article 6 of the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of 1927; and whether a similar rebate in Customs duties is being granted by the Spanish Government in respect of motor cars imported from Canada?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As has already been stated in this House, the rebate has been extended to United Kingdom cars as from 1st October last. The claim made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom was based upon the Treaty provisions referred to in the question; and, while the attitude of the Spanish Government in this matter has not been made altogether clear, the Treaty rights of this country and of Canada have been fully reserved. I regret that I am not in a position to answer the last part of the question.

Mr. TURTON: Would not the Treaty rights allow us to have a rebate from the 14th June, the date when a rebate was allowed to France?

CODEX SINAITICUS (PURCHASE GRANT).

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has placed any time-limit on their offer to contribute to the purchase price of the Sinai Codex Bible to a total of £50,000; and if, in the event of the public subscriptions not equalling half of the purchase price, any further contribution towards such deficiency will be contemplated by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part is at present hypothetical and I need only say that the authorities of the British Museum are confident that the sum required will be subscribed by the public.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Will it be necessary to lay a Supplementary Estimate before the House so that the matter can be debated?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that will be so.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the amount of the voluntary contribution which has already been made?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are not responsible for that. That is in the hands of the authorities of the British Museum, and I understand they advertise it almost from day to day in the newspapers.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will there be a free vote on the Supplementary Estimate?

Sir W. DAVISON: Who paid the £100,000 which has been handed over to the Russian authorities?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not the Government.

MINISTER OF HEALTH (VISIT TO GRIMSBY).

Mr. T. SMITH: 52.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Grimsby Health Committee have been presented with a bill for £12 10s. alleged to have been incurred as hotel expenses by him while visiting Grimsby recently; and whether this expenditure is to be a charge on the local rates?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The facts are stated as follows in a letter from the Town Clerk of Grimsby which, with the permission of the House, I will read:
With regard to the question which I understand Mr. Thomas Smith intends to raise, respecting the payment of the expenses of the Minister of Health on his visit to Grimsby, I beg to state that Sir Hilton Young and Sir Arthur Robinson (the Permanent Secretary), at the invitation of the corporation, stayed at the Royal Hotel, Grimsby.
The account to which reference is made was for the sum of £12 10s. 2d., and not only included the charge for accommodation, but also for a dinner which the corporation arranged in order to give the Minister an opportunity of meeting the mayor, the chairmen of the various committees, and the chief officials, prior to the inspection of the health services of this borough.
At the end of the visit, Sir Arthur Robinson was desirous of discharging the hotel bill, but, acting on the instructions of my committee, I refused to allow him to do so.
The account has since been paid by the corporation, in accordance with the express wish of the council.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the protest with regard to this bill was made in the first place by councillors in Grimsby? [An HON. MEMBER: "One councillor!"] Also, is he aware that the Press gave publicity to that protest? Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman states in his answer that I have been misinformed on this matter, is he aware—and I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have to say this—that the information now given is different from the information which was given to me on Tuesday of this week when I was pressed not to put the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By people connected with the Minister of Health. As a matter of fact, now that the right hon. Gentleman says that I was misinformed, is the Minister aware that the information given to me, which I did not intend to disclose except for the first part of the answer, was given to me by his own Parliamentary Secretary? Further than that, is he intending to take steps to correct the impression which has now been created in Grimsby and district as a result of the protest made by local councillors, who stated that they hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would never visit the town again in such circumstances?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling which has been aroused, both in Grimsby and throughout Lincolnshire, is one of great disgust at the affront which has been made to their hospitable feelings by a question of this kind, hospitable feelings which they have freely shown to Ministers of whatever political complexion and, in the past, sometimes to their Parliamentary Private Secretaries?

Mr. PALING: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether at this dinner he had in mind the Ministry of Health standard as to the amount of proteins?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask how this bill of expenses compares with the bill of expenses of the average trade union delegate?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a Debate, and might now properly be raised on the Estimate.

MALE SERVANTS LICENCE DUTY.

Major MILLS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to abolish the male servants licence duty of 15s. per head in the case of male servants whose nationality is British, so as to promote their employment; and if he will consider how far he could recoup the consequent loss of revenue by increasing the licence duty on foreign male servants and by extending the liability to include foreign female servants?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the question, as has been explained on a number of previous occasions, the male servant licence duty in England and Wales is not an Imperial but a local taxation duty, and its administration rests with the county and county borough councils which receive the proceeds, and I could not undertake to introduce legislation which would deprive the authorities of this part of their revenue unless I was sure of their concurrence and that a demand would not be made on the Exchequer to replace the revenue surrendered. As regards the second part of the question, while I have no actual statistics to show how many non-British male servants are employed in a taxable capacity, it may be accepted that their number is very small and that the abolition of the tax on British male servants, even if the tax on non-British servants were substantially increased and extended to include female servants, would result in reducing the proceeds of the duty to a small fraction of the present yield.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: As there has been considerable feeling about this matter for several years past, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with local authorities, and ask them if they will be willing to surrender this small amount of taxation, which, if surrendered, will result in giving employment to more men for domestic service?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local authorities have already been consulted by another association, and that a large majority of them do not wish to give up this source of revenue?

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND CHAIN STORES (TAXATION).

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to discouraging the extension of the activities of chain stores and co-operative societies, he will look into the possibility of imposing some special tax upon such businesses graduated according to the number of premises occupied by them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I doubt whether multiplicity of branches affords any ground for the special taxation of business.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such taxation is working with great advantage in another very large and important country?

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the approximate amount contributed in taxation during the past financial year by co-operative societies and by private firms and individuals engaged in the wholesale and retail business; and whether a co-operative society pays on the same scale of profits tax as a private trader?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Co-operative societies no longer enjoy any privileged position in relation to the Income Tax. The Finance Act of 1933 has placed the societies in precisely the same position as any ordinary trading company, and the societies bear exactly the same Income Tax on the profits arising from their trading operations as would be borne by any company carrying on the same trade. As regards the tax paid by the societies before the alteration in the law made in 1933, I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 38 of the Minutes of Evidence of the Committee of Enquiry into the position of the co-operative societies in relation to the Income Tax (Command Paper No. 4260). The statistics collected in relation to the Income Tax do not distinguish the Income Tax payable by private firms and individuals engaged in wholesale and retail business.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: Does the hon. Member appreciate that there is very strong feeling among the traders of the country that they are paying a higher rate of taxation on their net profits than the co-operative societies, and that if the co-operative societies paid at the same
rate as the private traders the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to restore the cuts?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With regard to any feeling that may exist, I hope that my answer will allay it.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the Treasury not take Lord Beaverbrook into consultation on this matter?

IRISH LAND STOCK AND ANNUITIES.

Mr. HEALY: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can indicate the total value of Irish Land Stock issued under the Land Acts, 1903 to 1909; the total value of the stock since redeemed out of the Sinking Fund and the price paid therefor, as well as the value of the stock outstanding taken at the current market value?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

£


Total nominal value of Irish Land Stock issued under the Land Acts, 1903 to 1909 (including Advances and Excess Stock, but not stock issued for the Land Purchase Aid Fund)
115,321,000


Total nominal value of the stock since redeemed out of the Sinking Fund
14,127,000


Price paid therefor
8,771,000


Value of the stock outstanding taken at the current market value
84,653,000

Mr. HEALY: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the farmers in Northern Ireland who have purchased their holdings under the Land Acts, 1903 to 1909, may now be given the benefit of the higher rate of interest on the Sinking Fund than that assumed and the heavy fall in the market value of the stock, instead of waiting for years, as their present circumstances do not enable them to continue to pay the annuities at the existing rates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 25th July last. As stated in that reply, there is no power to adopt the course of action suggested in the question.

Mr. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give the farmers the benefit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that there is no power.

BANK OF ENGLAND.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the importance of money as a commodity and the substantial dependence of British trade upon the monetary policy of the country, he will consider taking steps to impose a measure of Government control upon the operations of the Bank of England?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Government have no such intention. In practice there is consultation as necessary between the Bank of England and the Treasury.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the rise or fall of British exports depends very largely on the value of the £?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see what relevance that has to the question.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: What is the monetary policy of this country?

SHARE-OUT AND SLATE CLUBS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he intends shortly to introduce legislation with the object of regulating and controlling the abuses connected with share-out and slate clubs?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This matter has been considered on many occasions, and it has not been possible to find any practicable scheme of control.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the annual prosecutions and convictions, will the Government not take some steps to regulate these clubs?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think the Government have already shown extreme sympathy with my hon. Friend's efforts to take some action in this matter, but from the researches which the hon. Member himself has made I think he will agree that the difficulties are almost insuperable.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (STAFF).

Mr. CURRY: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the annual cost of the staff added to the Department of Customs and Excise, whether by new appointments or by transfer from other Departments, since 1st January, 1931?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The increased cost per annum of the staff of the Customs and Excise Department due to additions of staff from all sources from 1st January, 1931, to 1st January, 1934, is estimated at approximately £340,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 66 and 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) the number of prosecutions that have been instituted by the Milk Marketing Board, since its inception, against persons for alleged contravention of the regulations of the milk marketing scheme; and if he will state the result of such prosecutions;
(2) if he is aware that two cases of alleged contravention of the regulations of the milk marketing scheme were referred to arbitration some weeks ago; whether he will expedite a decision being reached; and whether he is aware that, owing to this delay, milk producers are questioning the power of the Milk Marketing Board to enforce the provisions of the milk marketing scheme?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the cases, three in number, in which the Milk Marketing Board have imposed penalties on registered Producers for alleged infringements of the conditions of their retail licences. In one case, the producer-retailer concerned gave notice to refer the matter to arbitration but afterwards withdrew his notice and paid the penalty in question. In another case, in which the matter was referred to arbitration, the arbitrator fixed a date for the hearing but I understand that the producer-retailer has given notice of his intention to apply for a postponement. In the third case, the matter is the subject of court proceedings. With regard to my hon. Friend's second question, I would point out that I have no power of intervention in the arbitration proceedings.

Mr. GLOSSOP: In view of the uncertainty which exists when a local prosecution is about to take place, will the right hon. Gentleman bring his influence to bear upon the board to ensure that the prosecution takes place as soon as possible?

MILK SUPPLIES, WILTSHIRE.

Mr. LECKIE: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the difficulty of purchasing fresh milk in the villages of Wiltshire owing to the fact that farmers are not permitted to retail locally more than one gallon a day; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the grievance?

Mr. ELLIOT: Under the Milk Marketing Scheme any registered producer may sell milk by retail without restriction as to quantity if he holds a licence issued by the Milk Marketing Board authorising him so to do. The Board are not entitled to refuse a retail licence to any registered producer who applies for one, except in the case of a producer who has previously had his licence revoked. By a determination of the board, a producer who does not retail more than one gallon of milk daily need not apply for a licence, but if he wishes to sell more than this quantity he should take steps to obtain a licence.

MILK PRODUCTS (Imports).

Mr. LAMBERT: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that, unless the import of oversea milk products is restricted, there will be such a glut of milk in the summer months as will result in the demoralisation of the market; and when he proposes to announce the policy of the Government on this subject?

Mr. ELLIOT: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the matter is receiving the Government's close consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. LAMBERT: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement, in order that the Milk Marketing Board may make its arrangements for future contracts?

Mr. ELLIOT: As my right hon. Friend knows, the matter is one of great difficulty and requires very thorough reviewing.

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Captain HEILGERS: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether legislation as regards the future of the sugar-beet industry will be introduced in the near future?

Mr. ELLIOT: The legislation referred to in the answer that I gave on 27th July last in reply to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend, the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. T. Cook), will, I hope, be introduced at an early date.

Mr. RANKIN: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that sugar-beet products are brought from Lincolnshire to London for refining purposes in foreign instead of British coastal vessels; and whether, in view of the fact that the taxpayer is subsidising the sugar-beet industry, he will make representations to the firms concerned to employ British coasting vessels and not foreign?

Mr. ELLIOT: I was not aware of the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend, but if he will be good enough to furnish me with particulars, I will certainly look into the matter?

BEEF PRICES.

Colonel ROPNER: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can make any further statement as to the intentions of the Government in arresting the decline in beef prices?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, time must elapse before the measures recently taken come fully into effect.

HOPS.

Mr. LEES-JONES: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received the report following the recent inquiry into the price of 1933 English hops, and when the report will be published?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Committee of Investigation for England has reported to me that the evidence and arguments placed before it disclosed no justification for the complaint of the Brewers' Society with regard to the prices fixed by the Hops Marketing Board for 1933 English hops. The findings of the Committee are being communicated to the board and to the Brewers' Society, but I do not propose to publish the report.

Mr. LEES-JONES: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the Government contemplate putting a quota on the importation into this country of foreign hops; and whether the duty on foreign imported hops will cease to be imposed?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Government have not under consideration the question of quantitative regulation of imports of hops. With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I would refer him to the announcement, of which I am sending him a copy, concerning the import duty on hops, which was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when introducing the Budget last year.

Mr. LEES-JONES: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the price of English hops of 1933 growth is based on cost of production or on world market price?

Mr. ELLIOT: The price of hops, as my hon. Friend will realise, is decided by the Hops Marketing Board on the information at their disposal, and I have no doubt that the board took all relevant factors into consideration.

WHEAT (FLOUR EXTRACTION).

Mr. THORNE: 87.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any agreement has been arrived at between the advisory committee and English flour millers at the recent International Wheat Conference to restrict the number of loaves to 92 per sack of flour; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I understand that the question of the percentage extraction of flour from wheat is one of the subjects which have been under the consideration of the International Wheat Advisory Committee, but I am not aware that any definite conclusion has been reached.

ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a large number of ordnance survey maps are seriously out of date, there having been no revision in some cases for over 20 years, and in others for over 40 years; whether he is aware
that, in consequence, considerable difficulty and expense is entailed in the preparation of maps for schemes under the Town Planning and Town and Country Planning Acts; and whether, seeing that the longer revision is postponed the greater the ultimate cost of bringing these maps up to date, he will take steps to expedite revision?

Mr. ELLIOT: I fully realise the desirability of a more frequent revision of the Ordnance Survey maps, but the matter is governed primarily by financial considerations, and I cannot say at present when it will be possible to take the necessary steps to expedite revision. The matter will, however, continue to receive my close attention.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are very few ordnance maps which show any such developments as arterial roads and new by-pass roads?

Sir J. NALL: Is the revision proceeding on settled plans so that people may know when the revision will take place?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is governed primarily by the financial needs of the time.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that these ordnance maps are out of date, that their sale is not as great as it would be if they were up to date, and that if they were up to date a profit could be made?

Mr. ELLIOT: That is a matter of opinion, but I realise that it is a valuable asset that is wasting owing to the lack of revision that is going on.

FOREIGN CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (RENTAL).

Mr. MITCHESON: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to institute an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining what sums are remitted overseas in respect of the rentals derived from the exhibition of foreign cinematograph films in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no power to require firms to supply information of this character.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday and Tuesday: Unemployment Bill, Committee stage—these are fourth and fifth allotted days.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Second Reading of the British Hydrocarbon Oil Production Bill and of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill; Committee stage of the Rural Water Supplies Money Resolution.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask whether the Government propose to give time for a discussion of the Disarmament Memorandum?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be glad indeed to provide time for that discussion at the earliest opportunity. The Order of Business which I have just announced was settled before the publication of the Memorandum, but, if it meets the convenience of the House, especially of the Opposition, I shall be glad to vary Tuesday's business, and, instead of taking the Unemployment Bill, give time for a discussion of the Memorandum which has been issued.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am much obliged to the Prime Minister.

Mr. TINKER: Will there be sufficient time on Thursday to discuss the two important Bills mentioned by the Prime Minister? They are both mining Bills.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think there will be sufficient time. The hon. Member will remember that the Hydrocarbon Oil Production Bill has been discussed already, and the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill is a comparatively small Measure. I know that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have one rather important point, but I think there is sufficient time to deal with the two Bills.

Mr. MAXTON: Is there any chance, after the experience we have had of the discussions on the Unemployment Bill in Committee, of the Government making a
reallocation of the time allotted for the Committee stage?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret very much that other business made it impossible for me to be in the House when this matter was raised on two previous occasions. I apologise to the House, but the observations made by my right hon. Friend will certainly be taken into account by the Government after we have finished the Committee stage. It can only affect the allocation of time to be given to the Report stage. We are watching the day-to-day proceedings, and when we have to ask the House to consider the allocation of time for Report, the experience of the Committee stage will be taken into account.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the Prime Minister aware that very important principles involved in training centres raised by the Measure have received absolutely no Committee discussion at all, and I contend that a Report discussion is not an adequate substitute for a Committee discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend will know that slight inconveniences arise from time to time, but the point will not be overlooked. I make no pledge, but the experience of the Committee in carrying out the Rule that was passed by the House will be taken into consideration at the end of the Committee stage.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although three Clauses were to be discussed before half-past seven the other day, we did not touch one single Amendment on the Paper. It was not because of any obstruction, but because the Minister of Labour himself moved a manuscript Amendment which made it impossible to deal with the Amendments on the Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry, but that has been the experience before. The circumstances the other night, I think, have not all to be attributed to the responsibility of the Government. I do not want to be controversial at all. My right hon. Friend has twice indicated the mind of the Government on this matter, and I say to the House now that what he said will be taken into account by the Government as soon as the Com-
mittee stage is concluded and we have to consider the allocation for the Report stage.

Mr. MAXTON: The point that I am trying to impress on the Prime Minister and the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) tried to impress on the Lord President of the Council, is that if it is possible to adjust the time allotted for the Report and Third Reading, it is equally possible to adjust the time allotted to the Committee stage, and our experience up to now—I am not saying that the 14 days allocation was wrong—has proved that the time allotted for each section has not been adequate for the important issues involved in each section, without any waste of time. The Prime Minister may quite rightly say that the Opposition take up a certain amount of time. That is what we are here for. But there was only reasonable discussion on each of these days. There was nothing in the nature of stupid obstruction, and I am asking the Prime Minister not to give an answer except to this extent, will he consider, in consultation with the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the possibility of readjusting the Committee time-table, and not merely the Report stage time-table?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the Prime Minister aware that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is a very skilful fisherman?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and I are very old friends, and we understand each other very well.

Mr. MAXTON: It will take me a long time to live that down.

The PRIME MINISTER: This really is a matter which concerns the House. The House will appreciate that when the time-table was adopted the Government did not attempt to divide the time allocated for the Report stage because it anticipated that certain reasonable difficulties would be encountered in the application of the time-table to the Committee stage. I think the House may just leave it there. I can go no further than I have already gone.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

MARKETING BOARD.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Marketing Boards, and move a Resolution.

RATIONING OF EMPLOYMENT.

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for rationing employment, and move a Resolution.

DEFENCE SERVICES (CO-ORDINATION).

Wing-Commander JAMES: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for closer co-ordination between the Services, and move a Resolution.

ARMY VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for increased facilities for vocational training with a view to employment on leaving the Colours, and move a Resolution.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to slum clearance, and move a Resolution.

AERODROMES.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the urgent need for the provision of further aerodromes in this country, and move a Resolution.

DEFENCE SERVICES (ESTIMATES).

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the difficulty of considering the defence requirements of the nation as a whole on Estimates for the Defence Services presented separately, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL NAVY (OIL).

Viscount ELMLEY: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for development of the heavy oil engine as a means of propulsion for His Majesty's ships, and move a Resolution.

CIVIL AVIATION.

Mr. LUMLEY: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of civil aviation to the Empire, and move a Resolution.

IMPERIAL TRUNK AIR ROUTES.

Mr. PEAT: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for the development of local air services with a view to feeding Imperial trunk air routes, and move a Resolution.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it a fact that only one notice of Motion has been given for Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, we have had two notices.

AIR FORCE RESERVE (PILOTS AND OBSERVERS) BILL,

"to extend the maximum period of annual training in the case of men of the Air Force Reserve who are serving as pilots or observers, or are qualifying for service as such," presented by Sir Philip Sassoon; supported by Mr. Hore-Belisha; to be read a Second time upon Monday, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen, Lord Apsley, Mr. Banfield, Mr. Ralph Beaumont, Captain Sir William Brass, Lord Burghley, Viscount Castlereagh, Mr. Christie, Lieut.-Colonel Cruddas, Mr. Dickie, Mr. Eastwood, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, Sir Robert Gower, Miss Graves, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Hanhury, Mr. Hartland, Mr. Holdsworth, Sir Paul Latham, Mr. Lees-Jones, Sir John Leigh, Mr. Kenneth
Lindsay, Mr. McKeag, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Mainwaring, Commander Marsden, Mr. Martin, Sir Frederick Mills, Mr. Mitcheson, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. John Morris, Brigadier-General Nation, Mr. North, Major Procter, Mr. Alexander Ramsay, Sir Walter Smiles, Mr. Stourton, Vice-Admiral Taylor, Sir Luke Thompson, and Mrs. Ward.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill): Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Dr. Burgin, Sir Christopher Clayton, Mr. Duff Cooper, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Mander, Sir Eugene Ramsdell, Mr. Remer, and Mr. Herbert Williams.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Sir John Sandeman Allen, Mr. Bossom, Mr. Boulton, Lieut.-Commander Bower, Mr. Boyce, Sir Archibald Boyd-Carpenter, Colonel Broadbent, Mr. Brocklebank, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Mr. Clarry, Major Colfox, Mr. Thomas Cook, Mr. Curry, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Glossop, Sir Park Goff, Colonel Goodman, Mr. Grimston, Captain Heilgers, Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, Mr. Magnay, Lieut.-Colonel Mayhew, Mr. Paling, Mr. Petherick, Mr. Pike, Mr. Price, Mr. Raikes, Mr. R. J. Russell, Mr. John Rutherford, Lord Scone, Mr. Spencer, Mr. Strauss, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, Mr. Summersby, Mr. Touche, Viscount Weymouth, Mr. Herbert Williams, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and Mr. Wise.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee B as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Licensing (Standardisation of Hours) Bill): Mr. David Adams, Viscountess Astor, Mr. Dobbie, Captain Dower, Captain Arthur Evans, Mr. Isaac Foot, Mr. Hacking, Mr. Holdsworth, Mr. Hutchison, Dr. Leech, Mr. John Lockwood, Captain Lumley, Lieut.-Colonel MacAndrew, Mr.
Nall-Cain, Mr. Pearson, Mrs. Tate, Marquess of Titchfield, Miss Ward, Mr. Wells, and Viscount Wolmer.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That the following Members representing Scottish Constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee: the Lord Advocate, Brigadier-General Sir William Alexander, Mr. Anstruther-Gray, Duchess of Atholl, Sir Adrian Baillie, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Mr. Boothby, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Buchan, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Burnett, Sir Samuel Chapman, the Marquess of Clydesdale, Commander Cochrane, Sir Godfrey Collins, Lieut.-Colonel Colville, Earl of Dalkeith, Lord Dunglass, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Dingle Foot, Sir Patrick Ford, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Guy, Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir Robert Horne, Miss Horsbrugh, Dr. Joseph Hunter, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Wellwood Johnston, Mr. Campbell Ker, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Kerr, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, Lieut.-Colonel Charles MacAndrew, Mr. James MacAndrew, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. McEwen, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McKie, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Dr. William McLean, Sir Ian Macpherson, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. David Mason, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Milne, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Captain Moss, Mr. Ormiston, Captain Archibald Ramsay, Mr. Thomas Ramsay, Mr. James Reid, Mr. Albert Russell, Lord Scone, Mrs. Shaw, Captain Shaw, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Robert Smith, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Henderson Stewart, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Templeton, Sir Frederick Thomson, Mr. Train, Mr. John Wallace, Major Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood, and Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

[3rd ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment as to anomalies regulations.)

4.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to raise a point of Order in connection with the Amendment which appears in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and myself—in page 9, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of the Clause, and to add:
The Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act shall cease to have effect.
There is in the Clause a reference to the Expiring Laws Continuation Act, and I take it from that reference that if this issue were raised only on the question "That the Clause stand part," and even if the Clause were deleted, having regard to this reference to the Expiring Laws Continuation Act, it would not have any force, because it would still leave the Expiring Laws Act in force. If the Clause were deleted you would not have any reference to the Anomalies Act, and, therefore, to overcome that, you must have a definite decision by this Committee, or, if need be, subsequently in the other House, to delete the Anomalies Act; otherwise no Amendment for the deletion of the Clause itself would have the desired effect. For that reason, I ask you, Sir Dennis, if it is not possible for you to reconsider the decision not to call this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member has said is demonstrably quite correct, but he has not realised the reason why I did not call his Amendment. It was not because it was possible to deal with the subject on the question "That the Clause stand part," but because I thought he should put down the Amendment he requires in the form of a new Clause, which, of course, there is plenty of opportunity for him to do.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: But on your Ruling, Sir Dennis, if we pass this Clause the
principle of the continuation of the Anomalies Act has been thereby accepted, and a new Clause would then be attempting to put into the Bill something that has already been rejected at this stage. In our view, the passing of this Clause continues the Anomalies Act with all the disabilities which it places on married women, seasonal workers and part-time workers. The passing of this Clause continues that, and if at a later stage we moved a new Clause to abolish the Anomalies Act, it would not then be in order, since the Committee would have already accepted it.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not agree with the hon. Member. I think that the pass-of this Clause would not rule out of order a new Clause on the lines of the Amendment which is on the Order Paper. Clause 11, it is true, refers to the Act in question, but it does not in any way reenact it. I am reading the Clause to see what it does do.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: With great respect, the first Sub-section of the Clause refers to the continuance in force of the specified Section, and, later, the Clause abolishes part of the working arrangements. If you continue Section I of the Anomalies Act, and also reject the Advisory Committee, in real essence you have continued the Act.

The CHAIRMAN: If the Minister has any opinion to express on this particular point, I will consider it.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Before the Minister replies, may I put this point? All that can be raised on the Amendment can also be raised on the question of the Clause standing part, and we should have a repetition of the Debate, because the Amendment, in effect, does the same thing.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Would it not appear from Sub-section (1) that upon the passing of that Sub-section the Anomalies Act would remain in force until Parliament otherwise determined, which must be by a subsequent Act of Parliament and not in the same Act? With the greatest respect, it would be difficult to read it in the sense of your ruling, Sir Dennis, that a subsequent Clause of the
same Bill could be a different determination within the meaning of Sub-section (1).

4.8 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Since you ask me, Sir Dennis, if I can give any assistance on this point, I am bound to say that the point is new to me in the sense that I have not heard it mentioned until a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but it seems to me that there is substance in it, because if the effect of the proposed new Clause would be to repeal the Anomalies Act altogether, then, on the face of it, that would appear to be inconsistent with the Clause already passed. I give this opinion with very great diffidence, and as a first impression, because I have not considered the point.

4.10 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I think there is no question about it that the proposed new Clause would not be in order if this Clause were passed as it is or to this effect, and, therefore, it would seem to me that the hon. Member's proper course would be to propose to negative this Clause with a view to bringing in another one. I have considered again very carefully, in view of what the hon. Member has said, his request that the first Amendment on the Order Paper should be called, but I do not think I could see my way to do that. It would be, in my mind, an abuse of the proceedings of the Committee in that the effect of it would be to discuss at the commencement of proceedings on the Clause a Motion which would be tantamount to a Motion to negative the Clause, as a whole. I admit there is a certain inconvenience in this case in that if the hon. Member's proposal to negative the Clause should ultimately be carried, it would, of course, have been a certain waste of time to discuss Amendments to the Clause, but that is a necessary result of our procedure which I do not think I can get over. I must, therefore, adhere to the ruling I have given that I cannot call the Amendment. The only way in which the hon. Member can achieve his purpose is by the two separate steps of negativing this Clause and then bringing in a new Clause to repeal the Act of Parliament referred to.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is in view of the fact that this Act is continued in the Expiring Laws. Suppose we negative the Clause. It has got no relation to that Act in so far as that, Act is continued in the Expiring Laws, and, consequently, before you can repeal this you must have the words here; otherwise you have got to put down a new Clause to deal with the Expiring Laws Act which is not under discussion. While it may appear to be somewhat redundant to have the discussion, at the same time I think that the Amendment is the only way in which we can conform to Parliamentary procedure.

4.14 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: With regard to the point just raised by the hon. Member, I would draw attention to the fact that it is not the Expiring Laws Continuance Act which is in question, but an Act which is mentioned specifically in this Clause, namely, the Unemployment Insurance (Expiring Enactments) Act. It is a special Act which was passed to prolong the Anomalies Act by one year to June next. As that Act is specifically mentioned in this Clause, I should say that there is no substance in the last point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) dealing with an Act which is not referred to in this Clause.

4.15 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has really answered the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I do not think, with respect, that there is anything in the point which the hon. Member for Gorbals last raised. I still think that the only way in which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his friends can achieve their object and repeal the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act is by moving a new Clause to that effect, and I agree also that in order to do so it would first be necessary for them to negative Clause 11 of this Bill.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I merely wish to ask a question and not to discuss your Ruling, Sir Dennis, any further. This Clause does raise the whole question of the Administration of what is known as the Anomalies Act and the question of whether that Act should be continued, in part or in
whole. It is not likely that the Committee will negative the Clause. We may as well face that fact. That means in effect that there can be no discussion on the question of the Anomalies Act as a whole. I suggest that it is desirable however that the Committee should have an opportunity of discussing the Anomalies Act, not in relation to one particular point or another but in relation to the whole administration because in our view all the different parts of that Act are correlated one with the other. I would like to ask your guidance therefore, Sir Dennis, as to how we can raise the whole question of the Anomalies Act, not in detail but as one subject, in view of the fact that the Clause is re-enacting that Act in part.

4.17 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: On the question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill, I think it would be in order to discuss Sections 1 and 11 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, which are specifically referred to in the Clause—that is to discuss the continuance or the repeal of those Sections—but those are the only parts of the Act referred to in the Clause. I have not considered, however, whether this Clause is such as would permit of a discussion on the whole of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, but I think it would probably permit all the discussion the hon. Member wants, namely, a discussion on those parts of the Act with which the Clause deals specifically and they form the greater part of the Act. I wish to guard against the possibility of having to curtail or restrict discussion later.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Sections 1 and 11 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act contain practically the whole of the operative part of the Measure. Sections III, IV and V really do not alter the position at all. The whole principle is contained in the first two Sections.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As I read the Bill, what is being done here refers to married women. That is all your Bill deals with in this Clause. It also sweeps away the advisory committee, but it has no reference to seasonal workers, for instance.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. What I was referring to was Section 1 of the Unem-
ployment Insurance (No. 3) Act and not Sub-section (1) of this Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I see the point. I thought it was Sub-section (1) of the Clause. But if it is the case that you, Sir Dennis, will allow a discussion on Section 1 of the Anomalies Act it means, in effect, and I say so frankly, largely dealing with the Anomalies Act as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN: I intended to refer to Section 1 of the Anomalies Act. If I had intended what the hon. Member thought I should have referred to Sub-section (1) of Clause 11 of the Bill. What I intended the hon. Member to understand was that on the Question, "That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill," it would be open to him to discuss the advisability or otherwise of continuing in operation Section 1 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act. It would be open to him in the same way to discuss Section 2 of that Act which is referred to in Sub-section (4) of the Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Thank you, Sir Dennis!
The following Amendments stood upon, the Order Paper:
In page 9, line 16, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Sir B. Peto.]
In page 9, line 16, after "Minister," insert "subject to the subsequent approval of Parliament."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore.]
In page 9, line 22, at end, insert:
but such regulations shall entitle any person covered by paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of the said Section one who has been employed and paid contributions for a period of not less than 13 weeks in any year to benefit, during the portion of the year when seasonal employment is not available, for one week in respect of every three weeks for which contributions have been paid in that year."—[Sir B. Peto.]

The CHAIRMAN: Sir Basil Peto!

4.20 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I do not propose to take a long time in presenting my Amendment as I understand that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and his friends wish to have an opportunity later to raise the whole question of the Anomalies Act. The Amendment which you have called, Sir Dennis, was before the House in substance, and practically
in identical wording, before the Christmas Recess and the Minister has had ample opportunity of making himself acquainted with the point which I wish to raise, namely, what I regard as the unfair treatment of seasonal workers.
The Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, referred to in Sub-section (1) of this Clause, was passed in 1931 and was intended to be for a period of two years only. By the Unemployment Insurance (Expiring Enactments) Act, 1933, the Act of 1931, generally known as the Anomalies Act, was extended for a further year, that is until June, 1934. In these circumstances and considering that this Bill proposes to make that Anomalies Act of 1931 a permanent part of our legislation, until Parliament otherwise determines, I think this is a proper occasion on which to consider how that Act has operated in respect of the different classes of people referred to in it. These include people who habitually work less than a full week, people whose occupations are of a seasonal nature and married women. The principle laid down in the Act was that it should be the duty of the Minister to make regulations in relation to the classes of persons to whom the Act applied, and to impose such additional conditions and terms with respect to the receipt of benefit and such restrictions on the amount and period of benefit as might appear necessary for the removal of anomalies. Parliament empowered the Minister to make such regulations as he thought fit for dealing with these classes of insured workers.
The next question which arises, as far as the seasonal workers are concerned, is how these regulations operated. First, let us consider the position before the passing of the Anomalies Act. Then, the seasonal worker, whose normal employment did not exceed six months in the year—usually the summer months—was able to go upon unemployment benefit for the remainder of the year, drawing benefit for the 26 weeks of the off season. That was unfair to the Unemployment Fund and to their insured fellow-workers, because those whose employment was not seasonal had not the same immense pull on the Unemployment Fund. That was one of the anomalies with which Parliament decided to deal in 1931. As I understand it the present position is that if an unemployed seasonal worker finds himself in a "broken" job during the season;
if during the season he is out of work and gets another seasonal job before the end of the season, he can claim benefit. But it is very unusual that the seasonal worker has any wish or any need to do so. As a general rule the seasonal workers' employment depends upon the continuance of the season. As long as a seaside resort, for instance, is crowded with summer visitors the seasonal worker is sure of his job. Therefore, under the regulations he is offered a benefit which it is unlikely he will ever be able to claim and which is of no use to him. What he wants is some measure of benefit during the off season.

4.25 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: There appears to me to be some little difficulty in connection with this Amendment. I would like the Committee to follow carefully what I say and possibly the Minister will be good enough to help me. What is in my mind is that on the Amendment which the hon. Baronet is moving we must not discuss the past working of the Act called the Anomalies Act. The particular Sub-section which the hon. Baronet proposes to omit seems to give the Minister power to make regulations to deal with anomalies which may arise in the future, whereas Section 1 of the Anomalies Act only gave him power to make regulations in regard to anomalies which had arisen. I am not sure whether that is the only difference between the two. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will correct me. If I am right, then on this Amendment, it would only be in order to discuss questions relating to regulations to deal with anomalies which may arise in the future and not those which have arisen and which have been dealt with in the existing Act.

4.27 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I gave very definite consideration to that point and Sub-section (2) of Clause 11 gave the Minister what semed to be precisely the same powers to make regulations as those which he already possessed under the Act of 1931 called the Anomalies Act. But the Anomalies Act is continued under this Bill until Parliament otherwise decides and in consideration of that fact it is necessary to give the Minister powers to make regulations in respect of any fresh difficulties or anomalies which may arise in the future. Surely on such an
Amendment as I have put down, it is open to us to consider the question of limiting those powers to make regulations in respect of seasonal workers, so as to leave those seaonal workers with some practical benefit and surely I can refer, as I proposed to do quite briefly, to the present position and the nature of the regulations which so far have been made? I do not want to take away his power of doing what he has done in the past, but I do want him to exercise his power differently in future under Sub-section (2).

4.30 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: On that point of Order. I would submit that if my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) wishes to establish the point that these regulations have inflicted undue hardship on various classes of persons, he should be entitled to call in aid of that argument the experiences of the past, and would be in order in going over the last two or three years' experience in that regard.

4.31 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so, and when I first rose to deal with this point I did not want to strike out all reference to the past. It is the old question that has so often arisen, as to how far one may discuss a point which may properly be referred to, but on which the discussion ought to be limited to matters that really apply to the particular Amendment before the Committee. I can see from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that in dealing with a provision enabling regulations to be made with regard to anomalies which may arise, it is quite relevant and proper to quote in aid cases which have occurred under regulations which the Minister has had power to make with regard to anomalies which have arisen in the past. I only want to guard against this Amendment being made use of to do what I have already ruled cannot be done until we come to the Clause, namely, to discuss the question of the advisability or otherwise of continuing the Anomalies Act as a whole.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On the point of Order. I understand that the point raised here is that under this Sub-section the Minister has power to make regula-
tions, and I understand that the hon. Baronet is questioning the Minister's right to be given complete power to do as he likes in that respect, and is pointing out how that complete power has been wrongly used in the past. That is the issue here, and I think the hon. Baronet is quite right in pointing out that the Minister's powers regarding seasonal workers have been harshly used to their disadvantage, and in asking that there may be some limitation on the Minister in the future.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is in accordance with what I have already said.

4.34 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: That was my sole purpose in addressing my remarks to the Committee when you intervened, Sir Dennis. I do not want to give numerous examples, but I will merely indicate the sort of example that I have in mind—that of a seasonable worker at a seaside resort. Take the case of a man who owns a sailing boat or a rowing boat. The boat is put away for the winter and only brought out when the first tourists or trippers arrive. The man is taken on probably for the season, and he is pretty sure of his job. Very likely he carried it out the year before to the satisfaction of his employer. But the moment the tourists have gone, the boats are put away again, and the thing absolutely ends. That man is very unlikely to be the sort of man who will find, in the dead winter season at a seaside resort, employment of any kind to keep himself and his wife and family during the winter. In the past he has been entirely shut off, so far as benefit in respect of his contributions was concerned, during the winter months, and I hold that some benefit in the off season, when no work is obtainable, is a thing that these people have a right to, because they have paid in all the time that they could reasonably get employment, and they ought to be given, in return for their contributions, something which is of value to them, not a mere offer of something which they are very unlikely to be able to claim.
The previous practice, before the Anomalies Act, was unfair to the fund and to those who contributed to it, because it gave an excessive right to these seasonal workers, a right for which
people whose employment was not of a seasonal nature had to pay more in contributions, and I suggest in my Amendment that they should be entitled to one week's benefit in the off season as a minimum in respect of three contributions. That would work out like this: Supposing the season had a duration of 21 weeks, or the particular worker had 21 weeks' employment during the summer, he would know that he would be entitled, not to 26 weeks' benefit, as in the past, but to seven weeks' benefit, which would be something substantial and, I hold, a fair return for the contributions that he has made. Of course, I do not wish to pin the Minister down to that, if he can show any reason why what I have suggested as the minimum that the man should receive—

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Baronet tell me which Amendment he is moving?

Sir B. PETO: I am moving the Amendment in the name of myself and other hon. Members, on page 9, line 22, at the end, to insert certain words.

The CHAIRMAN: I am much obliged to the hon. Baronet, but he has an earlier Amendment on the Paper, and, as a matter of fact, I called him to move that.

Sir B. PETO: I only put down the earlier Amendment in case you might for any reason say you did not purpose to call the second, and in case for some obscure reason, some reason not clear to me, the other Amendment might be out of order. As I was given to understand that my second Amendment, which I regarded as the substantial Amendment, was in order—

Mr. THORNE: On a point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: Order. I cannot have two hon. Members putting a point of Order at one and the same time. We must have the hon. Baronet's point first, and then I will call on the hon. Member.

Sir B. PETO: I was given to understand that the second Amendment was going to be called, and I thought that was the one that you were calling. Would you perhaps now call the Amendment to which I have been speaking, Sir Dennis?

Mr. THORNE: On a point of Order. I understood you to say, Sir Dennis, that you called upon the hon. Baronet to move his first Amendment, and now he is not moving it, but he is moving the second one, which cuts other people out.

The CHAIRMAN: I was going to deal with that point. I called the hon. Baronet, and it was not clear to me for some time that he was not moving the first Amendment, which I thought he was moving, and then I suddenly discovered that he was moving his second Amendment. I was not proposing to select the only Amendment which comes between those two on the Order Paper; and therefore, in the circumstances, as I called the hon. Baronet understanding that he was going to move the second Amendment in his name, perhaps he will now do so.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 9, line 22, at the end, to insert:
but such regulations shall entitle any person covered by paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of the said Section one who has been employed and paid contributions for a period of not less than 13 weeks in any year to benefit, during the portion of the year when seasonal employment is not available, for one week in respect of every three weeks for which contributions have been, paid in that year.
I had consulted your colleague, Sir Dennis, on the question of those Amendments, and I understood that the one which was going to be called was this second one which I am now moving. I had nearly finished moving it when you intervened, and I only want to refer to one argument that might be put up against it and which I hope will not be used. The payment to these seasonal workers of any benefit in the off season, it might be said, would be a deterrent to their endeavour to find work in the off season. I do not hold that that would be so at all. I think, on the other hand, that the knowledge that a man had had, say, 21 weeks' work during the season and that he would be entitled to at least seven weeks' benefit during the off season, would be a material help to the seasonal worker to get through the off season. It certainly would not be anything in the nature of support for him and his wife and family. It would be
nothing more than a little help to get through the winter season and would act, I think, as an extra incentive to him, rather than otherwise, to get work for as many weeks as possible during that period.
Therefore, while I am satisfied that it would not do to attempt to abolish the Anomalies Act of 1931 and to go back to the previous very unfortunate position, from the Unemployment Fund point of view—for, after all, to be of the greatest use to the great mass of the unemployed we should have a solvent fund and a reasonable system of working it—I want to limit the power of the Minister in the future to make any Regulation with regard to the benefit to seasonal workers which does not secure to them as a minimum one week's benefit in respect of every three contributions paid by them during the season. I hope the Minister will tell us that this part of the discussion will not last long, because I have put such a reasonable plea before him, and I cannot but hope that he will intervene at once and tell me that my plea is absolutely reasonable, that he hopes to accept my Amendment, and that he does not mind his powers, with the heavy duties imposed upon him by the Anomalies Act, being curtailed to that limited extent.

Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the hon. Baronet has been moving his second Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Mr. LAWSON: If that is so, his first Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (2), has been waived and is not to be moved at all.

Mr. COVE: On the point of Order. This is really important. The fact that the hon. Baronet is not moving his first Amendment prevents our discussing the point of the Minister having power to make Regulations, because I understand that the hon. Baronet's second Amendment is a restriction of the Minister's power, not its complete abolition. Do I take it, therefore, that since the hon. Baronet could have moved his first Amendment under your Ruling, but by mistake did not move it, the Committee has no opportunity of going back to his first Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: We have now got past his first Amendment. I was under the impression, it is true, that the hon. Baronet was going to move the first of the two Amendments in his name, but he did not do so, and he has since said that he did not desire to do so. That is the end of the matter.

Mr. COVE: Would it not have been open under normal conditions, when the Committee was not labouring under a misapprehension, for another hon. Member, in default of the hon. Member moving the Amendment which he had put down, to have moved it in his place?

The CHAIRMAN: It is too late to do so now. The hon. Member should have put his name to the Amendment on the Paper.

4.47 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I do not wish to go over the ground that has been covered by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), but I think it would be for the interest of the Committee if hon. Members who wish to take part in this Debate put cases with which they are personally acquainted before the Committee, because there are a number of various classes of seasonal workers who are affected in different parts of the country. I propose to put forward the case of a particular class with which I am acquainted. In my constituency we have a number of people who work on the roads, and, owing to the bad weather during the winter season, they cannot work for three or four months of the year. During the remaining eight or nine months they are employed on the roads. At present a seasonal worker, if he is employed for more than 18 weeks, is unable to obtain exemption. Consequently these men have to pay their contributions during the time they are working without any possibility of getting benefit during the off-season. I put it to any hon. Member whether he would not feel it an intolerable position to be asked to contribute to an insurance fund from which he could get no benefit.
As the hon. Member for Barnstaple has said, it is sometimes put forward as an argument that these men might get benefit during the season in which they are working, but of course they do not want benefit then; they want it in the off-season when they are not working. I
have a case before me of a man who over a period of five years averaged from eight to nine months' work in the year, and he is called a seasonal worker. He is unable to obtain any refund of his contributions or any benefit during the off-season because he is a seasonal worker. That is peculiarly a case in my constituency, because there is no other possible class of insurable employment to which these men, living in small islands, can apply for work. I have brought the case of these men to the notice of the Ministry, and the Parliamentary Secretary gave it, his sympathetic consideration. I think he said that he hoped that when there was legislation on the subject this matter would be put straight, or something to that effect. This is the opportunity when anomalies such as this can be put straight. I know that there are a number of hon. Members who can put forward cases, if not as good as this, nearly as good.

4.50 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: I support the Amendment because I am interested in the beet-sugar workers who are classed as seasonal workers. They have the shortest season of all—less than 18 weeks. Owing to the location of the factories, work in the beet-sugar factories is the main occupation of these men. There are 10,000 workers in the industry, and 8,000 of them are seasonal workers; and when they have finished their 18 weeks' work they have no possibility of any other work until May or June. I support the Amendment, because they must have some means of tiding over the three months of February, March and April. I hope that the Minister will not
tell us that they are allowed exemption. That is pointed out in the Report of the Royal Commission, but I think that no man worth his salt would claim that exemption. I ask the Minister's favourable consideration for these men to enable them to tide over the difficult three months after the beet-sugar factories close down.

4.51 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: On a point of Order. Do you wish that points which are contained in an Amendment down in the name of my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and myself dealing only with part of the Sub-section should
be dealt with under the proposal to delete the whole Sub-section, or do you propose to take it later as a separate Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady cannot discuss on this Amendment anything which goes beyond it. If she desires to speak on this Amendment she may have an opportunity of doing so.

Miss RATHBONE: I understand that the Amendment that is now being considered proposes to leave out the whole of Sub-section (2).

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Lady had been in the Committee she would have known that it was made very clear indeed that that is not so. We are not discussing that Amendment.

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: I have an Amendment down dealing with this question which I think goes further than the Amendment under discussion. In page 9, line 22, at the end to insert:
(3) Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of the said Section one shall have effect as if there were inserted at the end thereof the words 'But any person who has been employed and paid contributions for a period of not less than thirty weeks in any year shall be entitled to benefit during the portion of the year when the seasonal employment is not available.'
I would like to know whether my Amendment will be called or whether it will be in order to speak on this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be in order to speak on this Amendment. I cannot pledge myself definitely as to the other Amendment, but the probability is that, when the discussion on this Amendment has been dealt with, the later Amendment, which is on a similar point, will not be called.

4.54 p.m.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: In my constituency this is a burning and vital matter to a greater extent, I suppose, than in any other constituency, because we have 25,000 to 30,000 seasonal workers in our midst. My hon. Friend referred to the principles of the 1920 insurance scheme, which endeavoured to maintain, I believe, the principles of the 1911 scheme. One week's benefit was payable under that scheme for every six weeks' contribution. Of recent years we know that that has been swept away, end the seasonal worker to-day finds himself sometimes inside and sometimes
outside insurance and never on any sort of solid and satisfactory basis. The Anomalies Act, I think, placed him in an impossible position. I am aware that the Minister has different views. I understand that he says that the seasonal worker does get benefit, in fact more than he puts in. The seasonal worker can only get work when it is available, that is, in the season. If he could not, he would become simply a seasonal worker in name, and would actually become an ordinary unemployed man. Last December I tried to induce the Minister to get me some information on this question. I asked for the number of seasonal workers in Blackpool and the aggregate amount of contributions they paid in; also the number of workers for a specific period and the amount of their contributions over that period. I did not get a very satisfactory reply. It came from the Parliamentary Secretary and was:
I regret that the information desired is not available in respect of the 1932 on-season. An inquiry by sample into the benefit drawn by seasonal workers during the 1933 season is now proceeding, and I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when the results are available. I should add that the figures will relate to the whole country and not to any particular place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1933; cols. 1802–3, Vol. 283.]
I feel sure that the result of that inquiry will not be accepted by my constituency as a guide to the conditions that obtain there. We are a thriving, prosperous town and we exist on the seasonal worker. With us he is the normal worker, and in consequence we feel that he has a just grievance when he is unable to get any benefit in the off-season unless he conforms to almost impossible conditions. I know that it is possible to contract in or contract out, and on the face of it that seems fairly generous, but in my opinion it is a rather devious method on the part of the Ministry. Indeed, the Ministry says, "We know you will be coming to us for benefit, so just keep out." It is a sort of washing of hands, like Pontius Pilate. My people are so desirous of obtaining work that they do of their own volition come into the insurance scheme because they realise that they would otherwise be in a hopeless position and they hope to get a little work in the off-season. This is such a grave issue with us that I
earnestly ask the Minister to give it very favourable consideration. I am sure he will forgive me mentioning the old tag—"What Lancashire thinks to-day, England will think to-morrow." I will go further and say that what Blackpool thinks to-day, Lancashire thinks to-morrow, and England thinks afterwards. My constituency is of one mind in this matter, and I hope that its view will be shared by the Minister. I earnestly beg him to give sympathetic consideration to this very reasonable request.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I very much regret to find myself opposing the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Captain Erskine-Bolst), for most of my constituents go to his constituency in wakes week to recruit their health for the year. I feel that all the arguments we have heard so far have been based upon the assumption that, in fact, the seasonal worker does obtain more or less regular work during his own season and is unable to draw but a very small proportion of benefit during that period. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend noticed a written answer which appears in to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT which shows a rather different state of things. It is stated, in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Banbury (Major Edmondson) that an analysis over the country of seasonal workers shows that the percentage of men who drew benefit during the course of the season was 48.1 and of women 42.5 per cent. for an average respectively of 39 days and 35 days, and the percentage of the season for which benefit was received was 28.5 and 28.2 respectively. Further, I think I remember an answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) in which it was shown that the workers at Margate, who can reasonably be compared to those of Blackpool, though they are less numerous, drew in benefit more than four times what they contributed to the fund.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Suppose they gave us the figures for Oldham and for other industrial areas showing the amount the cotton people have paid in and drawn out, would the hon. Member defend the refusal of benefit to workers in Oldham because they had drawn out far more than they had paid in?

Mr. CROSSLEY: But they are available for work throughout the year; they are in occupations in which they expect to be employed throughout the year; and I do not know that one could complain about the present regulations on that point. The decision of the umpire definitely laid it down that a worker going into seasonal employment must have been in seasonal employment for three years before he could—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to interrupt, but I think we ought to have this point clear. After two years the presumption is raised that a person has become a seasonal worker. Before the expiration of two years it is for the man or woman who is applying for benefit to rebut the presumption that he or she has become a seasonal worker, but at the end of two years that presumption is put forward, and the great danger in every case is that after two years they become seasonal workers.

Mr. CROSSLEY: There is another safeguard, that under Clause 2 and Clause 19 of this Bill there are perfectly good methods of bringing a class of persons who are special sufferers, such as the class for whom the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) spoke, into the provisions of the Bill and exempt them from the working of the Anomalies Act. Furthermore, under this Bill there is the great difference that if a seasonal worker has not got his seven contributions during the off-season and does not come on to full insurance then instead of going, as now, to the public assistance committees he is dealt with under Part II of this Bill. I maintain that that makes a very big distinction. We must remember that this is an insurance fund, a fund which is rightly intended to be watertight. It had got into a weak financial position two years ago, and in justice to those workers for whom the fund is properly established it would be a great shame for us to undo what has been done since with a view to putting the fund on a more financially stable basis. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will not be passed.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I shall not spend much time on this comparatively narrow point, which we shall be able to discuss later, and I am of the opinion that it would be a good thing if we could take a vote on
it very soon. I rise to urge the Minister to accept the Amendment, though it does not go as far as I would like. I have seasonal workers in my constituency. Porthcawl is a very beautiful place in which to live, and is exceptionally healthy and inviting to visitors, and the impression has got abroad that men who have got work in this very beautiful seaside resort went there with the idea of dodging work in other areas. The suggestion was that they could get an out-of-doors job there for the season, and when it was finished—before we passed the Anomalies Act—could draw insurance for the rest of the year. In other words, they had a very nice occupation in a beautiful place in the summer time, and for the rest of the year were "on the dole," as it was called in those days. As a matter of fact, the men did not go there because it was a beautiful place, but out of sheer necessity. They had been hunting everywhere for jobs. In the hinterland there is the colliery industry. Practically all those men were miners who had tramped the valleys in search of work at their ordinary occupations, but had failed to get it, and had to take anything which they could get. They did not take seasonal work because is was seasonal, but only because it was the only work they could find. Under the present regulations they may now pay insurance during the whole of the season when they are working, and then find it is absolutely impossible for them to get any benefit.
The Minister was given powers some time ago to deal with what were spoken of as outrageous cases, but we have seen this afternoon how the operation of those powers has inflicted very great injustices. It has been shown that a man can pay insurance for nine months and get no benefit. From what was said during the discussions when the Minister was given the powers to which I have referred, one would imagine that we were dealing with cases of men working for one week and getting benefit for the rest of the year. Now it is perfectly clear that the law which we passed to deal with these supposed glaring cases of malingering is being used to penalise men who are good workers and ought to get insurance benefit. I am pleased to associate myself with this step in the right direction, even though it goes no
further, which we are now asked to take. As far as I can sum up the views of the Committee, I think there is a strong feeling that grave injustices exist and that we ought to take steps to eradicate them. I hope the Minister will not force us into the Lobby, but if he does so I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I do not pretend to know enough about the facts of seasonal employment to judge whether this Amendment provides the best way of dealing with the problem, but I wish to add my voice to those which have appealed to the Minister to treat this problem with sympathy. Only last week I had representations made to me from my own constituency by one employed in the ice-cream trade. Of course, we all know that that is a seasonal occupation. Those workers are paying contributions all the summer and not getting benefit when they need it in the winter. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) stressed the necessity of maintaining the principles of insurance, but surely one of the elementary principles is that a person who pays his premiums shall have a reasonable possibility of receiving benefit. It was represented to me that these workers have no chance whatever of ever making a claim to benefit, and I feel it is a real hardship that they should have to pay without any chance of getting benefit.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I would point out that the aggregate of claims was greatly in excess of the total of contributions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: So it is in the case of mining and of cotton. It is all right in the case of cotton, though!

Mr. DENMAN: I am dealing with representations made to me by a particular class of workers. There are 200 of them in Leeds. The fact that they are a small number does not lessen the hardship to them. I am sure the Minister will deal sympathetically with this limited problem.

5.13 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I think there is a distinct amount of misunderstanding of the situation, and I would ask the Minister to enlighten us as to the facts
of the case. Instance after instance has been given by hon. Members of workers in different employments who are paying insurance but getting nothing out of the fund, and I think the idea has got about that in these particular cases there is no insurance at all, that it is merely a case of paying in with no chance of getting anything back. If that be really so surely it is an unfair arrangement, certainly it is not insurance. On the other hand, we hear that there is a very large percentage of these people who are drawing insurance benefits. Therefore, I would like to hear from the Minister what are the real facts. If there are occupations in which there is not the slightest chance of the employé being unemployed, and he still wishes to pay and not to be exempt from paying, we should like to know what those occupations are and why those people are remaining in the insurance scheme when it certainly does not give insurance.
I have always felt—although I have realised that it cannot be the case—that there was something to be said for the insured worker who has been insured all his life and never drawn anything out of the fund at all, having the right of claiming back in his old age all or any of the contributions which he has paid. That is how it ought to be if this is an insurance scheme. You have the chance of paying in, in order that you may have the chance of drawing out. You may continue in employment all your life, in which case you draw out nothing. The contrary statement has been made here this afternoon, and I should like to have further information on the point, especially in the light of the written answer which appears in to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT. I may be making a wrong statement on this point, and I should like an answer from the Minister, as to whether changes have lately been made by regulation or otherwise, which make the lot of the seasonal worker easier.
I lately had a case, which I thought was extremely hard, of a labourer who had tried to get work, but had been unable to obtain it except as a showman's labourer. He discovered that he would be registered as a seasonal worker, and I at once thought that that was surely not fair. The man had not been able to find any other work in the way of labouring, and it seemed to put him in a worse position by taking work as a
showman's labourer than if he had secured no labouring at all. On considering the matter further, I realised that other labourers who had taken no work would, in the six months, have run out of benefit. By taking work as a showman's labourer, the man had not put himself into a worse position, because at the end of the time, and after the season was over, he would not have received anything if he had had no work at all, and he would also run out of benefit during the six months. I want to know how this man can again become a nonseasonal worker. I believe that the regulations have lately been changed, and that the minimum number of contributions during the on-season brings him back as a seasonal worker for the whole year and the next year.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The matter was not dealt with by regulation, but by umpire's decision.

Miss H0RSBRUGH: I thank the hon. Member. I was not quite sure of the matter, and I would like a clear understanding as to how a seasonal worker in the on-season can become a full-time worker, and how long it lasts. The main points to which I would like the Minister to reply is whether seasonal workers as a whole are getting anything in return for their contributions, whether the majority are getting something in return and that it is insurance; and further, that they are no worse off for taking seasonal work than if they remained unemployed? Lastly, what are their chances of getting back to full-time insurance?

5.18 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I would like to ask if the Minister can now see his way to answer the points which have been raised. I know that he wishes to give as many Members as possible a chance of speaking, but it is now nearly 20 minutes past five, and discussion upon this Clause will come to an end at half-past seven. Because the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has been ruled out, and the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) did not move his first one, we have not yet had an opportunity of discussing the matter. We have been dealing with the Regulations, but we have not had an opportunity of dealing with the general administration.

5.19 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: A good many hon Members have wanted to get up, and I did not like to interfere, but I will very willingly reply to the points which have been made. First of all, I wish to call attention to the wording and to the form of the Amendment which we have been discussing. It reads:
but such regulations shall entitle any person covered by paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of the said section one who has been employed and paid contributions for a period of not less than thirteen weeks in any year to benefit, during the portion of the year when seasonal employment is not available, for one week in respect of every three weeks for which contributions have been paid in that year.
When I have explained what the Amendment means, the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) will no doubt be surprised. It means that after the seasonal worker has paid 13 contributions, amounting to a sum of less than 13s., he will be entitled to get, as a matter of course, rather more than four weeks' benefit, that is, rather more than £4, in the off-season. The Amendment imposes no requirement at all, even that he must be unemployed, and it will follow that a man who might be employed after having paid 13s. would then proceed to draw £4 during the off-season.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that such a man has first to satisfy the statutory conditions? The first statutory condition has to be fulfilled.

Sir B. PETO: Nobody is entitled to benefit unless he is out of work. That is a fundamental principle, and the right, hon. Gentleman knows that.

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is not what the Amendment has said. I was going on to assume, I hope in the hon. Baronet's favour, that that was what was meant by the Amendment, because it is on those lines that the whole discussion has taken place. The Amendment seeks to deal with classes of persons who, during the on-season, are engaged the whole time. They pay contributions but they do not draw benefit. That is really the point of substance which lies behind the Amendment. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) drew attention to an answer which appears in to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT. It points out that we have made a sample inquiry, which is the normal
method, as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) knows, of arriving at an estimate in certain cases. The answer says:
A full report of the results of the inquiry will appear in the February issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.
This inquiry shows, as the hon. Member for Dundee has said, the percentage of people receiving benefit or transitional payments as no less than 48 per cent. during the season. The average duration of the season was five months four days for men, and four months 16 days for women. The answer states:
Among the men, salmon fishers, waiters, and certain classes of labourers received amounts well in excess of the average, and the same is true among women, of kipperers and other fish workers.
Then it goes on in the last paragraph:
From the sample, it appears that the benefit and transitional payments received during the 1933 season were well in excess of the amount of the contributions paid by workers, employers and the State and was over three times as great as the amount of the contributions paid by all the seasonal workers, including those who were not unemployed during the season."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1934; cols. 373–4, Vol. 285.]
Therefore there are large numbers of seasonal workers who, during their season, are not unemployed and who in consequence pay contributions for which they get nothing.

Sir B. PETO: What becomes of the 52 per cent.? Owing to the nature of the inquiry there is no evidence as to their contributions.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Clearly, if they are unemployed during their season, they get benefit.

Sir Mr. A. BEVAN: In their season.

Sir Sir H. BETTERTON: The Committee must really make up their minds whether we are discussing a pension scheme or an insurance scheme, and if it is intended to make this a pension scheme the Committee must say so. It is not my view, and it was not the view of the Labour Government in 1931 when the position of those who do not get employment at all in the off-season was considered. Unless it is a pension scheme, you cannot expect, and it would not be right to ask,
contributors to provide pensions for those who in the off-season are doing no work at all. There is one further point which has already been referred to. If a seasonal worker is aggrieved by the operation of the regulation, he may take his exemption, if his normal employment does not extend over 18 weeks in the year. The third point to which I want to draw attention is that there are a certain number of persons who are classed as seasonal workers but who get a certain amount of work in the off-season. The Act says that if that period of employment is substantial, such a worker is no longer regarded as a seasonal worker, and the regulations do not apply to him.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said quite truly that the Umpire has said that a man is employed for a substantial period if he is employed for one-quarter of the off-season. I do not think that it is very unreasonable to say that if a man is not employed for as much as one-quarter of the off-season, he should still be entitled to draw benefit in respect of contributions which he has paid. The hon. Member for Dundee asked whether I knew of any case where a seasonal worker's employment during the season was such as to fall into a certain category. No such case has been brought to my notice. I would remind the Committee that the procedure set up under the Act has been simplified in this regard, so I am just going to refer to it. It is open to me to put formally to the Advisory Committee under the existing Act, draft regulations for their consideration, but as at present advised I do not propose to draft fresh regulations. I will willingly put to that Committee any case or any class of case where it seems to any body of persons that they are being unfairly treated by the regulations as they now exist. It is the business of the Advisory Committee, as it will be the business of the new body, to consider this matter from time to time, when draft regulations are submitted to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said that I exercised this right of making regulations quite arbitrarily, and that therefore I was to be criticised for making regulations which were acting unfairly. The Committee will remember, however, that this very point was provided for in the Act
passed by the Labour Government in 1931. Sub-section (6) of Section I of that Act says:
Before making any regulations under this Section the Minister shall submit a draft thereof to the Advisory Committee, and that Committee shall forthwith proceed to take the draft into consideration and shall as soon as may be make a report thereon to the Minister.
The next Section of the Act prescribes the constitution of the Committee, which includes representatives both of employers and of workpeople. That procedure, which was laid down by the Act, is exactly the procedure that I have followed from the very moment I took office. I have not made a single regulation that has not been approved and sanctioned by the Advisory Committee set up for the very purpose of advising me. Therefore, I am entitled to say that my action has been strictly in accordance with the obligations placed upon me by the Act. The very first thing that I did after I was appointed Minister of Labour was to set up an Advisory Committee. Draft regulations were put to them, were approved by them subject to certain suggestions which I adopted, and were then made as regulations. Some time last summer, I think in July, I thought that some of these regulations might be acting rather harshly, and I put before the Advisory Committee other suggested regulations modifying the former ones substantially. These again were approved by the Committee, and they are the regulations now in force. Therefore, with regard to this question, which has been raised in various parts of the Committee, of alleged grievance or injustice to any class of workers in any trade, I shall be perfectly willing, if any case seems substantial and worthy of consideration, to put it to the Committee for their advice.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Is it not the case that Sub-section (4) of Clause 11 of the Bill abolishes the Advisory Committee to which the Minister has referred?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes; I meant to have said that. The Advisory Committee under the previous Act is abolished, but its duties are to be taken over by the Statutory Committee.

5.34 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions. In the
first place, I should like to know, in view of the nature of his reply to this Amendment, whether his objections to it would be removed or modified if the right to benefit in the off season were limited to those workers who had made no claim to benefit during the season—if, in fact, it were limited to the 52 per cent. who, according to the inquiries which he has made, made no claim to benefit during the season. My other question is whether, in view of the fact that the only way in which a seasonal worker can get out of being classified as a seasonal worker—which, ex hypothesi, is greatly to his disadvantage—and get back to his full right to benefit, is that he should have found employment for at least a quarter of the off season, the Minister thinks it a just provision that the person who does not get a chance of getting any employment in the off season should receive nothing in the way of benefit, while the person who gets employment for a quarter of the off season is entitled to get out of being classified as a seasonal worker and then to get benefit? The principle here seems to be that he who hath shall receive more, and from him who hath nothing there shall be taken away even that which he hath.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. HARBORD: I represent a town where there is a number of these seasonal workers who work for two or three months in the summer during the fishing season or who work in the beet sugar industry. There are some 800 of them who are engaged in that industry. Their complaint, I think, is a just one, and one which should receive favourable consideration from the House under this Bill, and their employers would like to see them receive a certain benefit and a proper answer to their complaint. The point has been put very clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). They have done their best, paying their contributions to State insurance for seven or eight months of the year, and yet, although they cannot get any kind of employment in the off season, they are turned down. That is a hardship and a shame which should be remedied here when we have the opportunity.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 246.

Division No. 81.]
AYES.
[5.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason. David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Bernays, Robert
Harbord, Arthur
Paling, Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Alien


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Healy, Cahir
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Price, Gabriel


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cove, William G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Curry, A. C.
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Klim'rnock)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.℄


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Groves and Captain Erskine-




Bolst.




NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Denville, Alfred
Ker, J. Campbell


Albery, Irving James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Dickie, John P.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Doran, Edward
Knox, Sir Alfred


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Drewe, Cedric
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Apsley, Lord
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Duggan, Hubert John
Law, Sir Alfred


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Leckie, J. A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Eden, Robert Anthony
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Levy, Thomas


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Elmley, Viscount
Liewellin, Major John J.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Blindell, James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Boulton, W. W.
Flint, Abraham John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mabane, William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ganzonl, Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McKle, John Hamilton


Browne, Captain A. C.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Buchan, John
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Goff, Sir Park
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
Magnay, Thomas


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Maitland, Adam


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. [...]. D. R.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Martin, Thomas B.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hanbury, Cecil
Meller, Sir Richard James


Clarry, Reginald George
Hartland, George A.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Conant, R. J. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Cook, Thomas A.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cooke, Douglas
Hornby, Frank
Moreing, Adrian C.


Copeland, Ida
Horobln, Ian M.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Moss, Captain H. J.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Munro, Patrick


Craven-Ellis, William
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hurst, Sir Geraid B.
Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Crossley, A. C.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
North, Edward T.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jamieson, Douglas
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)






Patrick, Colin M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Peat, Charles U.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Petherick, M.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Smithers, Waldron
Train, John


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Tree, Ronald


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Soper, Richard
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rankin, Robert
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stevenson, James
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Rickards, George William
Stones, James
Wells, Sydney Richard


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Storey, Samuel
Weymouth, Viscount


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Strauss, Edward A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ross, Ronald D.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Summersby, Charles H.
Womersley, Walter James


Salt, Edward W.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)



Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Selley, Harry R.
Thompson, Sir Luke
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris-


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Jones.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to move, in page, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided that such regulations shall not take effect until they have been submitted to Parliament for amendment and approval, and have been approved with or without amendment by both Houses of Parliament.
There is general agreement on all sides of the Committee as to the importance of the regulations that are made under what is termed the Anomalies Act. They are so vital to the interests of those who might come under the Act, that it is essenial that the House should not only have power to approve or disapprove of them, but to amend them. I feel that the reply of the Minister on the previous Amendment was very unsatisfactory and I, for one, am quite unwilling to leave the sole judgment of the rightness or otherwise of these regulations in his hands. I think we should be very wise in insisting upon the power to amend what the Minister recommends.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The Minister has told us that he made a very drastic alteration in the regulations at the end of last year. The point upon which he altered them was one that affected a great mass of women whom we have always said it was never intended in the least that the Anomalies Act should have touched. One thing that has roused a great mass of criticism during the past two years has
been that the Act applied to large numbers of women in the cotton areas who were thought to be normally unemployed, and were not anomalous cases at all. I find that one amendment that we made to the regulations, which has operated for two years, is to the effect that a woman who is unemployed as a result of depressed conditions in the particular area ought not to be subject to the conditions of the Anomalies Act. Many thousands of women in the cotton area particularly, who are unemployed directly because of depressed conditions have actually been subject to the Anomalies Act, and the right hon. Gentleman has had to revise his own regulation to see that these women did not suffer as the result of the operation of that Act. I am very pleased that he has done it. It is a sweeping alteration. It is rather remarkable that the amendment that he has made has passed almost without observation but, if it is right now, it was right two years ago and, if it is right, it means that the Act has been applied to great masses of women to whom it ought never to have applied. One would have expected the Advisory Committee to be up-to-date and to keep pace with experience, but it has not done so.
Now these regulations have to go from the hands of the Advisory Committee to the Statutory Committee, a body which is outside Parliament and is in a very powerful position, and it seems to me, in
respect particularly to the working of the Anomalies Act, that the House of Commons ought to keep these regulations definitely within their reach and, in the light of experience, make sure that an opportunity is provided for their proper consideration and revision, so that such a thing shall not happen as has happened during the past two years. The Act is no longer to apply to great masses of women to whom the Minister now says it will not apply. That is very good for the future, but what is going to happen to the women who have been put out? In the light of that experience, the House of Commons certainly ought to make sure that the regulations are kept within its reach, so that it can have an opportunity of real and searching examination of their operation in the future.

5.57 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am not sure that the Minister will go so far as to allow amendment of these regulations, because that will open up a very big question. Under a great many Acts of Parliament regulations have been made and the practice has grown up that the House can only accept or reject them, which, of course, gives an opportunity for a Debate and, no doubt, if feeling were generated very strongly against the draft regulations, those who are responsible for drafting them would have to take note of that and make alterations. It was with that onsideration in mind that I gave notice of an Amendment which does not go so far as this, but suggests that the regulations shall not take effect unless laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament. I hope, if the Minister is not going to accede to this, which on the face of it is a very reasonable Amendment but might create a very awkward precedent, he will accept my suggestion, and so ensure that this House will have a final say, and can express its opinion so strongly that the regulations can be re-drafted if necessary.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There has been a good deal of feeling on this question of regulations. The question was raised with the last Labour Government. We are not dealing here with people who have run through their insurance rights.
Parliament has thought it wise to modify them, but, nevertheless, they have insurance rights, and they ought to have the right of having the conditions scrutinised. I hope that hon. Members will not fence about it, because at that time we were subject to a great deal of abuse. I was called by a Labour Minister a megalomaniac on this question. I was told by the Secretary of State for War in the Labour Government at that time, that I was not even a member of my Trade Union, and therefore, hon. Members must not complain now about our saying things about them. The Labour party deliberately voted that night to exclude the matter from Parliament with a number of exceptions. The case against us was that those of us who said that there should be approval by Parliament were too lazy to wait until 11 o'clock. I quote this from responsible men in the Labour party; let hon. Members read it. That was the excuse that was made. I always feel contempt for politics when I see men doing things here when they are painfully conscious of the fact that if they were sitting on the Government benches they would do the opposite. There can be no reality in anything until men stop that kind of carrying on.
The point I want to make is that these regulations operate without the consent of Parliament at all. The Minister may bring in regulations at a time when the House of Commons is not sitting, and the House of Commons has no opportunity of rejecting them. They operate on the day that he publishes them. All that is required under the regulations, is that they must lie upon the Table for a certain number of days of Parliamentary time, and a Member can raise the matter during that time, but during the time they are lying on the Table they operate. Whatever may have ben said by the Minister in regard to seasonal workers, at least they have an insurance right which should not be modified or altered without Parliament giving consent. That is the point.
You say that this is an Insurance Bill. You either mean it or you do not. Nobody should have their insurance right modified or altered without Parliament giving consent. Surely, that is a fair proposition. The issue is that Parlia-
ment should give consent before an insurance right is altered. The Minister has power to alter an insurance right and to apply the alteration without Parliament knowing about it. If we discuss the question of a regulation after it has begun to operate we do not really discuss the regulation, but a vote of censure upon the Minister, which is a totally different thing. If the House discussed the regulation, Members would vote on its merits, but once a regulation begins to operate, the whole conduct of the Minister is involved. If we carried the vote it would be a censure of the Minister, and he would have to resign. The right of Parliament to retain control over the insured contributor is an inalienable right, and should not be challenged. I trust that those who have regard for the Minister and for the decencies of life will see to it that the Amendment, which is a reasonable one, is carried.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will, on personal grounds, listen sympathetically to the considerations which have been offered. We have now an opportunity of checking a process which has been the subject of severe comment outside, as I think on reasonable grounds. His Majesty's judges have repeatedly called attention to the fact that under recent legislation disabilities and rights are put upon the subject without the proper review and sanction of Parliament, and that it is contrary to the best interests of this House that these matters should receive the force of law without the direct approval of Parliament. In this particular matter we are asked to enable the Ministry to take powers to affect the rights of the subject without proper review by Parliament. I think that that is contrary to the public interest, and that we ought to avoid as far as possible the suspicion and disquiet which will become general if subjects in distress realise that their privileges and rights are being withheld without the direct responsibility of Parliament. Therefore, I join in the representation to my right hon. Friend that, in some appropriate form, this House should have an effective opportunity of reviewing any curtailment of the rights of the subject which this Bill provides.

6.8 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I rise at this stage because I think that it will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I state the views which I have formed with respect to this and other Amendments, including the one put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), which deal with the same point. First of all, I will explain what the Bill does with regard to making regulations. Regulations have to be placed before the Statutory Committee for their recommendations, comments and advice. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, Regulations made under the Insurance Acts have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House in the next subsequent 20 days on which that House has sat, next after any such Regulations came before it, praying that the Regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything done under it. That means, as the hon. Member said, that the moment a Regulation is made we can act upon it. Unless an Address is presented within 20 days the Regulation becomes binding. All that can happen in the 20 days is a Prayer and unless the Prayer is acceded to, the regulation becomes operative. I have to consider the regulations which can be made under this Clause. I agree that the power to make regulations is a very serious one quite apart from the protection which the Statute gives. The power which the Minister has in his hands by Regulations under the Anomalies Act is a great deal more probably than the House is aware. Let me tell hon. Members what I can do. The Anomalies Act, 1931, which was passed by the last Labour Government in Section 1 says:
For the purpose of removing anomalies which have arisen in the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts … it shall be the duty of the Minister after consultation with the Advisory Committee … to make … regulations which shall … impose such additional conditions and terms with respect to the receipt of benefit and such restrictions on the amount and period of benefit and make such modifications in the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts … as may appear necessary.
That means that under Regulations, as things stand now, I should have the power to make a regulation cutting down benefits and altering conditions in various directions, which, I frankly suggest, I do not think are powers which should be entrusted to a Minister without the approval of Parliament. I think that these Regulations ought to be subject to the approval of Parliament. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough which reads:
Provided that such regulations shall not take effect unless and until they have been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
I cannot accept, of course, the Amendment now under discussion because it raises very big questions, which I am not prepared to enter into or consider at the moment. But I am prepared to accept the principle that these regulations should be approved by Parliament, and I shall insert such words as may be necessary on the Report stage.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Although we appreciate the fact that the Minister has gone some way towards meeting our views, nevertheless my friends and I feel that we must press our Amendment to a Division. We feel that the question of allowing this House to amend regulations is one of the first importance. We have realised in the lifetime of this Parliament that when you take away the power to amend, you take away part of the authority of this House. We have seen this sort of thing in operation in a number of instances, particularly in the agricultural marketing schemes, where Member after Member has got up and put very serious and weighty objections but has been unwilling to vote against the scheme as a whole. In that instance and many other instances the House of Commons has found that its hands have been tied because the powers to make amendment have been taken away. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) said that this would be a very awkward precedent if it were carried out. We realise that it would be an awkward precedent for the Minister, and to every Minister who hereafter may sit on the Government Front Bench. We think that it would be an
admirable precedent from the point of view of the House of Commons, and for that reason we propose to take the Amendment to a Division.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I imagine that a considerable part of this discussion will be raised again on Clause 17 dealing with the Statutory Committee. The concession which the Minister has made has reference to his powers under the Anomalies Act, though I assume that when we come to discuss this Clause the concession will be extended to the regulations as a whole—I am assuming that—otherwise the concession will lose a great deal of its value.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member must not assume that I said any such thing.

Mr. BEVAN: I should not do so, but I assume that if the concession is not extended to all the regulations under the Statutory Advisory Committee, it will lose a great deal of its point. The Statutory Advisory Committee will have the most extensive obligations imposed upon it to make recommendations to the Minister. I should like to support the point of view which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot). We are, for the last time, discussing the right to legislate for the unemployed. From now on legislation with respect to insurance benefit and Government assistance will be in an entirely new form. The right to move an Amendment to a Bill is, in effect, the right of a private Member to initiate legislation. If we have no right to make an Amendment, then the right to initiate legislation effectively disappears and only the Minister will have the right to make any proposals to the House. If hon. Members will think of what has happened in the last three days, they will realise how important it is that hon. Members should have the right to voice the grievances of their constituencies in this House. That right disappears if an hon. Member cannot move an Amendment relating to his constituency. Hon. Members this evening have articulated the grievances of their constituents because they have had the opportunity of moving Amendments. Once that opportunity disappears and the grievances of their constituents are not articulated in the proposals of the Minis-
ter, then their rights disappear. It is our duty to preserve those rights and powers.

Mr. KNIGHT: On the Motion for approval these matters can be raised. The constituents are not rendered inarticulate.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. and learned Member forgets the procedure that will occur. It is true that the Minister must come to the House to secure approval before the Regulations can be made law, but the position of the House will be that of acceptance or rejection. In order that an hon. Member may be able to represent in the course of legislation the views of his constituents he must be able to move an Amendment giving expression to them. That is the only effective way. If an hon. Member thinks that the only way to represent his constituents is simply to make a speech and to get it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that is one way of looking at it, but the effective way to represent his constituents is to be able to amend the law, and not merely to make a speech just to satisfy his constituents that he is here.
The power which the House has always retained is the power to move specific Amendments relating to specific grievances, and to have those Amendments incorporated in the law of the land. That is why when, I regret to say, this proceeding was started in respect of unemployment insurance by the Labour Government I protested against it, because it appeared to be taking away from the House of Commons, a function which it has kept for the whole of the centuries of its existence. That is precisely why we are here. The conflicts which have taken place in British history between the Commons and the Crown centred around the right to initiate legislation. The Executive is now taking to itself the functions that formerly belonged to the Crown in the days when the Commons objected to the exercise of those functions by the Crown. Parliament has not the right of initiating legislation; that belongs to the Executive. Hon. Members lay themselves open to the accusation that they are endeavouring to remove from themselves the obligation of ventilating the grievances of their constituents. In the last few days the Minister has made many concessions. Why?
Because the eyes of the constituencies are upon the Members of this House.

Mr. MARTIN: I am not clear about the hon. Member's argument. If an hon. Member moves an Amendment which his constituents wish to be moved and it impresses the House, then the House will accept it. The same argument applies if an hon. Member moves the rejection of the regulations and the House rejects the regulations. In that case the Minister would bring in new regulations, with the new proposal inserted.

Mr. BEVAN: That is not the same thing. There is this difficulty in that course that you have not an opportunity of modifying the legislation without rejecting the whole. The difficulty is that you cannot focus your desire on the Amendment inself. You can only do that in a speech, and some of us are so inarticulate that it is difficult to understand what we are saying. Therefore, it is better to have a form of words on the Order Paper. Although an hon. Member may have a perfectly good point, he cannot force his point of view to the attention of the House or the Committee unless he can compel them to relate it to the possibilities of a Division. If other hon. Members are allowed to make general speeches, they can obscure the point that he has made.
I would ask hon. Members to realise—I am not saying this by way of threat, but by way of representing what is happening—that this Bill is being watched by the country more carefully than any other Bill of recent years. The House is under suspicion that what it is attempting is to exonerate hon. Members from the obligation of representing the grievances of their constituencies. That is a charge that is being levied, and it is a perfectly correct charge. In the past, unemployment insurance legislation has been discussed by this House in the most microscopic manner, but now, for the first time, we are discussing unemployment insurance under the Guillotine. We have discussed only a few Clauses in the last few days, and on those we have had concessions. What might we not have had in the way of concessions if the other Clauses had been discussed?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: If you talked less you would have a chance of speaking on more Amendments.

Mr. BEVAN: I am addressing a most serious argument to the House, and one on which I feel most keenly. If it amuses the hon. Member, or he objects to it, perhaps he might hide himself in some of the other rooms of the House. The Minister seeks to protect himself from the pressure of Private Members by the Guillotine, and he now wants to protect Private Members from the pressure of the constituencies by means of regulations. That is a very important step towards the destruction of democratic principles. There are lots of things that can be discussed by way of regulation. Parliamentary procedure ought to be short-circuited very often by methods of this kind, but there is one subject that must not be taken from the Floor of the House, because if we do so we destroy the essentials of Parliamentary government, and that is the problem of the condition of the people. Unemployment insurance raises that problem in a form that no other subject raises it, and I submit that if the House regards itself as the custodian of the liberties of the British people it will prevent the Minister of Labour from suffocating, suppressing or frustrating in any way the rights of Private Members by dealing with the rights of their constituents by decrees rather than by the orthodox methods of Parliament.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The concession which has been made by the Minister is one of real value, but I should like to make one or two points before we proceed further. I have always held that it is primarily the right of the House of Commons in these matters to deal with the position of the individual, but that provision has not very often been inserted in legislation. It was common and well known, but is has frequently been dealt with by way of Regulation and Orders. To-day we have so many Orders lying on the Table that a large percentage of them are neglected, with the result that Parliament is almost flooded with these papers, and the real value of them is less than it used to be. That is a matter which Parliament ought to consider.
The proposed Amendment would lay the Regulation on the Table not only for approval but for amendment. I realise that it is impossible for the Min-
ister to accept the Amendment, because it would set up an almost entirely new precedent. Already the time of Parliament is hopelessly overburdened, and if we attempt to set up another precedent we may produce absolute confusion. I sympathise with the Amendment and would like to see it brought about in its entirety, but I do not see any good in bringing it in unless we are able to operate on this occasion and on other occasions with real business, in a political and Parliamentary sense. The Amendment is not practicable in the present state of Parliament, but I do think that there should be provision made whereby Regulations of this kind could be amended, but that should be done by a Committee upstairs. I would like the Government to consider whether it would not be possible for this new system of Orders to be considered in such a way that Parliament could exercise its mind properly in dealing with them, and not merely say "yes" or "no." Unless the House of Commons readjusts itself and takes a much fuller control of Parliamentary life, it will go down hill and become less powerful than it is to-day. For that reason I congratulate the Minister on accepting the ordinary form of our procedure, although I am sorry that an Amendment of great value and interest is not one which we can really accept.

6.31 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I desire to lay stress on the constitutional issue. When three years ago we were discussing the Anomalies Act, many hon. Members, including those who approved of it—I was one to disapprove—thought that we were granting undue powers to a committee outside Parliament. What has happened is that the Anomalies Act has succeeded in changing the whole principle of contributory insurance as it affects women. Who would have anticipated that before the first set of regulations had been on the paper for a fortnight 74,000 women would have been swept off insurance, and that before they had been in force a year 180,000 women would have been swept off insurance? Who would have anticipated that large numbers of women who are compelled to be contributors, who were genuinely seeking work and in urgent need of benefit, would practically lose the
value of all their contributions up to the time of marriage under new regulations made for them by a committee who are under no obligation to get the sanction of Parliament for their regulations? What has been done has not been to apply the principles laid down by Parliament, but practically to change the whole basis of compulsory insurance against unemployment, and to make a married woman a person who has the privilege of contributing towards insurance but very little chance indeed of receiving any benefit.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am a little surprised that so much indignation has been expressed on this matter, having regard to the fact that seldom has the power to make regulations been more safeguarded than in this case. These regulations are to be laid on the Table of the House after they have been examined by the Statutory Committee, after that Committee has reported on them, and after they have been brought to our notice accompanied by that report. They are not to be placed on the Table with no explanation. They are going to be examined with great care by people with technical knowledge who have to report on them and, therefore, Parliament will get what it very seldom gets in these cases.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member is quite wrong. The regulations as soon as they are approved will come into force. As soon as the Minister approves them they will operate.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That may be so. They may be in operation for a period, but if Parliament does not approve of them they will cease to operate. The same thing occurs in the case of Import Duties. They come into operation—

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is no analogy at all. Regulations under the Import Duties Act must be approved by Parliament; they do not operate right away.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I really must ask the hon. Member to read the Act. Obviously, if they did not operate right away you would get a large amount of anticipatory importations. But they cannot continue to operate unless Parliament approves. In this case Parliament gets what it very rarely gets, and that is a report on the
regulations by someone other than the Minister. Imagine what would happen in Parliament if this proposal were extended generally to regulations. I was responsible for approving 20 pages of detailed technical regulations regarding petrol pumps, in order to ensure that hon. Members and citizens generally got full measure when they bought petrol. If the Weights and Measures Act, under which those regulations were made, had required amendment as well as affirmative approval by this House, I am satisfied that any body of Members who desired to obstruct the business could have kept my petrol regulations under discussion for weeks.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Will the hon. Member answer one question? Who is better able to judge the necessity of these regulations, as to whether they are right or wrong, than an hon. Member who is coming up against these cases every day?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The regulations are to be drawn up by the Minister, and "Minister" means all the numerous competent people who work under him, who are not up against these things in the sense in which the hon. Member and I, but who are actually daily administering them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Obviously they are. Does any hon. Member suggest that the people who know most about this matter are not the officers of the Exchanges? [Interruption.]

Mr. A. BEVAN: The man who knows most about this question, who knows how much a man can live upon, is the perfectly ordinary person and not the expert, and a Member of Parliament, in his representative capacity, is not supposed to be an expert but an ordinary person representing ordinary individuals.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We all understand that perfectly well. I have listened to this Debate very carefully, and I have only made one interjection, and that was when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) was protesting against not having an opportunity to discuss certain Clauses of the Bill. I said that if he talked less on some Clauses he would have more opportunity of talking on others.

Mr. COVE: You talk sense.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As far as I am aware, I have not said anything—

Mr. COVE: No, you have not.

Mr. WILLIAMS: —in any way provocative, but I have been constantly interrupted since I rose. I assume that the reason is that I happen to be saying things which do not quite suit those who are interrupting. We are discussing a grave constitutional issue. I did not raise it, and I am expressing a point of view substantially different from that expressed by anybody else. Therefore it may save time if I am allowed to express it. I suggest that the Amendment partakes of the nature of something which cannot conveniently in any circumstances be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. Regulations are intended to deal with smaller items of detail. The whole object of the system of regulations is to make it possible to pass ordinary Acts of Parliament. If you attempted to incorporate in any Act of Parliament the great mass of material which is incorporated in regulations, you would never pass but one Bill a session. That might be an advantage, but I submit, respectfully, that if you do not wish to bring the work of Parliament to a stop, you must not ask it to deal in detail with regulations. We should be grateful to the Minister for undoing the great evil done by the Socialist Government in withdrawing some of these things from the purview of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to restore them to Parliamentary control, but it would be absurd to bring this matter within the range of amendment, because, obviously, to attempt to amend regulations in detail would be a matter of hopeless difficulty. If there is any objection the Minister will withdraw the regulation and re-draft it. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, because if it is carried it will impose upon us a new procedure which will make the work of Parliament absolutely impossible in the future.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: We are supporting this Amendment because we are convinced that in it is wrapped up the whole future of Parliamentary government in this country. I rose to ask the Minister one question. It would be ungracious not to acknowledge the concession he has made;
it is a valuable concession, but in undertaking to accept the principle of the Amendment he said he would consider the introduction of words on the Report stage. He directed our attention not to the Amendment under discussion but to the one in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) which says:
Provided that such regulations shall not take effect unless and until they have been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Are we to understand that the undertaking given by the Minister is that the words which he will insert on the Report stage will have the effect of preventing the regulations from being acted upon before the approval of Parliament has been obtained?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I thought I made the matter clear. If any answer is needed, the answer is yes.

Mr. CURRY: That makes the concession all the more valuable, because one of the greatest objections to the regulations issued under the Anomalies Act is that they have always been acted upon before they have been approved. I regret that the Minister has not accepted the Amendment under discussion, because we consider the ability of Parliament to make amendments is the only way of preventing the regulations being acted upon before they have been approved and the only effective way of securing Parliamentary control.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Perhaps it would not be inappropriate for me to utter a warning to the Minister of Labour in regard to the Clause we are considering. By the Sub-section, even after the assurance he has given, the Minister of Labour is only to have power to make regulations subject to the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1931. That Section relates to the Unemployment Insurance Acts which were then in existence, and provides that the regulations are to be made as soon as possible after the passage of that Act. It may he, therefore, that the Minister is not taking anything like the power that he anticipates in this Sub-section, that he will not be taking any powers to deal with the later Unemployment Insurance Acts, including the Bill we are discussing.

Sir H. BETTERTON: That point did not escape me. I think probably that
when we have to draft the words for the Report stage we shall substitute "Order" for "Regulation" and make it perfectly correct.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 270.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[6.47 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Angiesea)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot


Batey, Joseph
Grove, Thomas E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bernays, Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Paling, Wilfred


Cape, Thomas
Healy, Cahir
Parkinson, John Alien


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cove, William G.
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Curry, A. C.
John, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Mr. Walter Rea and Sir Murdoch




McKenzie Wood.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Conant, R. J. E.
Hamllton, Sir George (Ilford)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cook, Thomas A.
Harbord, Arthur


Albary, Irving James
Cooke, Douglas
Hartland, George A.


Alexander, Sir William
Copeland, Ida
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Alien, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Anstruther-Gray. W. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Apsley, Lord
Crooke J. Smedley
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Crossley, A. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hornby, Frank


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Horobin, Ian M.


Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Barclay-Harvey. C. M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Howltt, Dr. Alfred S.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Denville, Alfred
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Dickie, John P.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Donner. P. W.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Bilndell, James
Doran, Edward
Hurd, Sir Percy


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Drawe, Cedric
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Boulton, W. W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Duggan, Hubert John
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Jamleson, Douglas


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Ker, J. Campbell


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Knight, Holford


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Burnett, John George
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Law, Sir Alfred


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burniey)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Leckie, J. A.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Levy, Thomas


Cassels, James Dale
Gledhill, Gilbert
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Castlereagh, Viscount
Glossop, C. W. H.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gluckstein, Louis Halie
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Goff, Sir Park
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mabane, William


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Graves, Marjorie
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Clarry, Reginald George
Grimston, R. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Stones, James


McKie, John Hamilton
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Storey, Samuel


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Edward A.


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Magnay, Thomas
Rankin, Robert
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Maitland, Adam
Ray, Sir William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Summersby, Charles H.


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col Sir M.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Martin, Thomas B.
Rickards, George William
Thompson, Sir Luke


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Meller, Sir Richard James
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ross, Ronald D.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Train, John


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tree, Ronald


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. B. (Ayr)
Saimon, Sir Isldors
Turton, Robert Hugh


Moreing, Adrian C.
Salt, Edward W.
Wallace, Captain D. C. (Hornsey)


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris-Jones. D. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Moss, Captain H. J.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Selley, Harry R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wayland, Sir William A.


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Smiles, Lieut.-Col Sir Walter D.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


North, Edward T.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Nunn, William
Smlthers, Waldron
Weymouth, Viscount


O'Connor, Terence James
Somervell, Sir Donald
Whyte, Jardine Bell


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Soper, Richard
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S)


Patrick, Colin M.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Pearson, William G.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Peat, Charles U.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Perkins. Walter R. D.
Spens, William Patrick
Withers, Sir John James


Petherick, M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Womersley, Walter James


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur



Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stevenson, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Sir George Penny and Commander




Southby.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert—
(3) The proviso to sub-section (2) of the said section one shall have effect as though at the end thereof the following words were added:—
'or who prove that they have been deserted by, or are permanently separated from, their husbands.'
The point I wish to raise is a very small one having regard to the number of people who are affected by it, but it is a very important one. It is such a tricky point that I ask the Committee to follow me closely in dealing with it. My Amendment is designed to add certain words which are in the Bill to the proviso that is in the present Act. What the Bill seeks to do is to abolish the proviso which gives benefits to certain women; that is to say the Bill is to abolish that proviso and add certain words. The Minister under this Bill is to give benefits to certain people. He wants to exclude from the operation of the Anomalies Act the woman who proves that she has been deserted by or
is permanently separated from her husband, or that her husband is permanently incapacitated. That class of women will not be subject to the Anomalies Act. Unless words are simply taken for what they are worth and added to the Bill the effect would be to cut out certain women whose husbands are unemployed and not receiving any benefit. While the Clause says that a husband must be permanently incapacitated before a woman is outside the Anomalies Act, under the present Act any woman whose husband is incapacitated is excluded from the operations of this Bill.
I do not think it is necessary to argue the point. I am wondering whether the Government really understand the changes they make in this particular Clause. What we propose to do is to leave in the proviso that excludes the woman whose husband is unemployed or the woman whose husband is in capacitated, from the operations of the Anomalies Act—to leave that proviso in and to add to it the benefits that the Government want to give under this Bill, that is in the case of the woman whose
husband has deserted her or is permanently separated from her. I hope the Committee has gathered from that statement what the Amendment does. The Government want to exclude women whose husbands have deserted them, or from whom they are permanently separated, from the penalties of the Anomalies Act. But if the Government merely abolish the proviso, as the third Sub-section says, then it will bring women, who are now excluded from the operation of the Anomalies Act because their husbands are unemployed or incapacitated, into the purview of the Act, and thus penalise them to that extent.
There was a great debate upon this subject when the Act went through, and I trust that the Government will see their way clear. There are one or two small Amendments to follow this one before the question is put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and if the right hon. Gentleman will give us a reply in the affirmative we can pass to the next Clause. While it is a small point, it is one of overwhelming importance to the women who are concerned under this Clause.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As I read the Bill, it merely cuts out a woman whose husband is not receiving benefit. At the present time the Anomalies Act says that if a woman can prove that her husband is not receiving unemployment benefit or any kind of benefit, then she is entitled to receive benefit and need not be counted as a married woman; in other words, she is a single woman for the purposes of the Act if her husband does not receive benefit or is incapacitated. There is no limit under the present Act to the duration of the incapacity. This cuts out the woman whose husband is not receiving benefit of any kind, and also the woman whose husband may be sick but is not permanently incapable.
I think that the Government will be left in the same position here as in workmen's compensation, with the old-time argument about when a person is incapacitated and when he is not incapacitated. It is difficult for medical science to prove that a person is absolutely incapable of work for all time. I know the case of a man who was incapable of work because of some disease of his nose; they brought him from Glasgow to
London, to Harley Street, and after years they made him a new nose—a magnificent piece of work. What is the definition, in view of such a case, of being absolutely incapable of work? I also want to point out to the Minister that for a woman to turn round and say to a man that he is absolutely incapable of work would be entirely wrong, even if she believed it; it would mean her sending that man, whatever spirit he had, to damnation. I think it is a good thing to keep people thinking that they are going to get back to work even if we know that they are not. This is asking a man's wife to say to him, "You are incapable of work." We should not ask a woman to say that.
We on this side have a special affinity for this part of the Act, for we moved it. We moved this proviso, and it was carried unanimously after a speech by Mr. Scott, who represented the Liberal party, and a plea by one of the Labour Members. I say, try to keep the Act as it is. There has been no abuse of the Act; I have read through the evidence of the Royal Commission, and there is no evidence that the Act has been abused. In fairness to the procedure, it was the duty of the Advisory Committee to report on abuse if any had occurred, and no such report has ever been furnished. Keep the Act where it is: a woman is entitled to be treated as single if her husband is incapable of work. In certain diseases it is almost impossible to say how long the incapacity will last. As regards a man not drawing benefit, the position is that he is not entitled to it; he is not an insured person, but must be a person outside insurance and not in receipt of benefit. In that case the woman does not want him to become a charge on the public funds, the Poor Law, and she claims benefit and receives it. To keep the Act as it is will be the right and proper thing for the Minister to do, and I trust he will do it.

7.7 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I think I can remove a great deal of the quite genuine misapprehension and clearly expressed fears entertained by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan). At present
the Anomalies Act imposes certain additional conditions which certain people have to fulfil, and it entrusts to the Minister the power of laying down by regulation, after consultation with the Advisory Committee, what those conditions shall be. After Sub-section (2), (d), of Section 1 of the No. 3 Act of 1931, which deals with married women, there was inserted a proviso which excluded two categories of married women from the scope of the Anomalies Act and therefore from coming under the regulations. Those two categories were women whose husbands were incapacitated from work and women whose husbands were unemployed and not in receipt of benefit. It did not enable us to deal with those two classes of women in any way; it kept them right outside the Act.
The result, of course, has been a certain number of anomalies. Let us take the case of a woman whose husband, for instance, had been at work and who had herself been classified as a woman coming under the Anomalies Act. If her husband fell out of work, then during the first six days of his waiting period—although it was clear that he was unemployed and not in receipt of benefits, for those six days only, his wife became suddenly taken out of the Anomalies Act and entitled to be dealt with as a single woman. As soon as her husband had served his waiting period and was entitled to draw benefit, the whole rigmarole had to be gone through of putting this woman up again before the court of referees and having the decision taken that she properly came under the Anomalies Act. Possibly, there was not a six-days' waiting period and the man was only unemployed for one or two days, but according to this proviso the absurd position arose that a woman whose husband was unemployed even for one day and not qualified to draw benefit was for that one day outside the Anomalies Act, and that when that day was over, back she came inside it.
It is in order to overcome that type of difficulty that we want to abolish the proviso and to remove this type of woman, with the full intention that if this alteration that we are making goes through, we shall put the case of the class of woman whose husband is unemployed but not in receipt of benefit before the
Statutory Advisory Committee in order to have regulations drawn up which will cover her case and yet not result in the woman whose husband is uninsured, unemployed, unable to get benefits, being penalised. I hope that assurance will satisfy the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow on this point, about that particular class of woman.
I turn to the other class of woman under the proviso, whose husband was incapacitated. Again, as the Act did not describe in any way what "incapacitated" was, you get the position that if the husband is incapacitated for work for one day, then technically under the Act for that one day while he is ill the woman ceases to be subject to the Act, but if after that day he gets well again, back she goes under the Act. It is an impossible administrative position, and that is why in the new Sub-section of the Bill we have inserted the word "permanently." A little later on among these Amendments the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) has an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the word "permanently." I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument used by the hon. Member for Gorbals in that respect, and I will give this assurance that, as we probably shall not reach the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Woolwich, I will see on the Report stage if I can devise some form of words other than "permanently" that will meet what we have in mind in order to get out of the difficulty. I do not know whether I can, but I shall certainly endeavour to do so.
As regards the remaining class of woman, who has been deserted by or is permanently separated from her husband, both we and the party opposite are agreed that she ought to be excluded from the purview of the Anomalies regulations. That is the effect of the Sub-section which stands in the Bill. I observe that the hon. Member opposite has agreed with me upon the reasonableness of the ouns of proof being placed upon the woman instead of on the insurance officer. We are all agreed on that. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member opposite will agree to withdraw his Amendment and let the Clause stand.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure that the Committee will be obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for the explana-
tion he has given in reply to the speech of my hon. Friend on my left, but he will pardon some of us being still a little concerned about the qualification for benefit of this type of woman. I know of nothing more helpless than the woman whose husband is incapacitated, or who has been deserted by her husband, or whose husband is unemployed and is drawing no benefit at all. Quite frankly, I did not follow the hon. Gentleman in his reply, and I am no clearer on this point now than I was when he rose to speak. But I have asked someone who knows more about these problems than I do to put in writing the effect of Sub-section (3) and, with the permission of the Committee, I will read his observations:
While this Sub-section improves the law to the extent of benefiting women who have been deserted or are permanently separated, it restricts the law to the extent of penalising the woman whose husband is unemployed and not in receipt of benefit, and, as regards the woman whose husband is incapacitated, it introduces the word 'permanently'.

Mr. HUDSON: It seems obvious that the brief from which the hon. Gentleman is reading was prepared before I made my statement. I covered both those points.

Viscountess ASTOR: And the Amendments which I have on the Paper cover all those points.

Mr. DAVIES: The Noble Lady's speeches always do. I wish to touch upon another question of which I know just a little. In regard to the question of incapacity I wish to ask the Minister whether proof of incapacity will in future come from the approved society or not. There must be in this country at least 500,000 adult people, men and women, who are permanently incapacitated and there will be I imagine not more than 7s. 6d.

per week paid to them in respect of National Health Insurance benefit. I do not think it is sufficient for the purpose of determining total incapacity to wait in every case until the approved society begins to pay disablement benefit at the end of six months, because permanent disablement might very well commence on the very day a men fell ill. Before we pass this Clause I would like to find out whether the Ministry is in communication with the Ministry of Health and the approved societies on the question of what is meant by permanent incapacity.

Mr. HUDSON: The point raised by the hon. Member illustrates very clearly the disadvantages of putting words into the Statute instead of taking advantage of the new procedure and leaving these matters to be dealt with by regulations by the Statutory Advisory Committee after full inquiry and after, for example, the friendly societies have had an opportunity of putting their case. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) or the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) would agree with me, but my view is that it might be better to abolish the proviso under the existing Act and leave these three points, with the promise that they would be dealt with by the Statutory Committee. Then we could cover all these questions which have been raised. We cannot put into an Act of Parliament all the provisions that would be required to meet the various cases that might be brought up. I merely throw that out as a suggestion.

Mr. LAWSON: We prefer that there should be a statutory right.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'have,' in line 24, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 47.

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, Hen. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brass, Captain Sir William


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Broadbent, Colonel John


Albery, Irving James
Bernays, Robert
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Alexander, Sir William
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Browne, Ernest (Leith)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Browne, Captain A. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Apsley, Lord
Borodale, Viscount
Burnett, John George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Boulton, W. W.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Bainlel, Lord
Bracken, Brendan
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Cassels, James Dale
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ray, Sir William


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rea, Walter Russell


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jamleson, Douglas
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jennings, Roland
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Colfax, Major William Philip
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Conant, R. J. E.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rickards, George William


Cook, Thomas A.
Ker, J. Campbell
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesail)


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cooper, A. Duff
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Copeland, Ida
Knight, Holford
Ross, Ronald D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Runge, Norah Cecil


Craven-Ellis, William
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Crossley, A. C.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Law, Sir Alfred
Salt, Edward W.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leckie, J. A.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Curry, A. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lees-Jones, John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Levy, Thomas
Savery, Samuel Servington


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Selley, Harry R.


Denville, Alfred
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dickle, John P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Donner, P. W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Doran, Edward
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Drewe, Cedric
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Duggan, Hubert John
Mabane, William
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Eden, Robert Anthony
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Soper, Richard


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Spens, William Patrick


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Magnay, Thomas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Maitland, Adam
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stevenson, James


Fermoy, Lord
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stones, James


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Storey, Samuel


Fox, Sir Gifford
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Martin, Thomas B.
Strauss, Edward A.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Summersby, Charles H.


Giedhill, Gilbert
Meller, Sir Richard James
Sutcliffe, Harold


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Granville, Edgar
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Train, John


Graves, Marjorie
Moss, Captain H. J.
Tree, Ronald


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grimston, R. V.
Munro, Patrick
Turton, Robert Hugh


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Ward, Sarah Adela[...]e (Cannock)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
North, Edward T.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Nunn, William
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, Terence James
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Harbord, Arthur
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hartland, George A.
Ormiston, Thomas
Weymouth, Viscount


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Patrick, Colin M.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Haslem, Henry (Horncastle)
Peat, Charles U.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Penny, Sir George
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Petherick, M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Holdsworth, Herbert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Hornby, Frank
Pickering, Ernest H.



Horobin, Ian M.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Mr. Blindell and Mr. Womersley.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Paling, Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William



Dobble, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mainwaring, William Henry

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 61.

Division No. 84.]
AYES.
[7.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Conant, R. J. E.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cook, Thomas A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Albery, Irving James
Cooke, Douglas
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Alexander, Sir William
Cooper, A. Duff
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Copeland, Ida
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Harbord, Arthur


Apsley, Lord
Craven-Ellis, William
Hartland, George A.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bainlel, Lord
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovill)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Bateman, A. L.
Denville, Alfred
Hornby, Frank


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Dickie, John P.
Horobin, Ian M.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Donner, P. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence


B[...]nays, Robert
Doran, Edward
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Drewe, Cedric
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Bilndell, James
Duggan, Hubert John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hurd, Sir Percy


Borodale, Viscount
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Boulton, W. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Jamieson, Douglas


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jennings, Roland


Bracken, Brendan
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Ker, J. Campbell


Brass, Captain Sir William
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fermoy, Lord
Knight, Holford


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Knox, Sir Alfred


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Burnett, John George
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Law, Sir Alfred


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Leckie, J. A.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gledhill, Gilbert
Lees-Jones, John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Glossop, C. W. H.
Levy, Thomas


Cassels, James Dale
Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Goff, Sir Park
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Granville, Edgar
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mabane, William


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Graves, Marjorie
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Clarry, Reginald George
Grimston, R. V.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


McKie, John Hamilton
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Stevenson, James


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stones, James


Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)
Storey, Samuel


Magnay, Thomas
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Maitland, Adam
Ray, Sir William
Strauss, Edward A.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Summersby, Charles H.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Martin, Thomas B.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Meller, Sir Richard James
Rickards, George William
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ross, Ronald D.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Runge, Norah Cecil
Train, John


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tree, Ronald


Moreing, Adrian C.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Turton, Robert Hugh


Morrls-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Salt, Edward W.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Moss, Captain H. J.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Munro, Patrick
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.


Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Selley, Harry R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


North, Edward T.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Nunn, William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Weymouth, Viscount


O'Connor, Terence James
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ormiston, Thomas
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Patrick, Colin M.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Pearson, William G.
Soper, Richard
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Peat, Charles U.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Penny, Sir George
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Spears, Brigadier General Edward L.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Petherick, M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.



Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spens, William Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Mr. Womersley and Lord Erskine.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Rea, Waiter Russell


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlv.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 12.—(Determination of claims and questions.)

7.41 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(ii) that the fifth statutory condition is not fulfilled.
The fifth statutory condition reads as follows:
"That, if the Minister has, for the purpose of giving him an opportunity of becoming or keeping fit for entry into or return to regular employment, required him to attend at an authorised course, he proves either that he duly attended in accordance with the requirement, or that he had good cause for not so attending."
That statutory condition means that a man has to prove, if he is ordered to
attend an authorised course, that he either attended or had good cause for not attending. We ask that this Amendment shall be inserted so that the insurance officer cannot stop a man's benefit on the ground that he has not attended or has not given a sufficient reason for not attending, but that such a case should go to a court of referees. The 1930 Act was very clear. There was only one ground upon which the insurance officer could stop a man's benefit, and that was a trade dispute. Otherwise, the insurance officer had to send the case to a court of referees, and the man was paid his benefit until the court of referees decided the case, and only that court could stop his benefit. In this Sub-section the Minister is completely altering the powers of the insurance officer and giving him far greater powers to stop a man's benefit, and I cannot understand why the Government were not satisfied with the wording of the 1930 Act and why they could not have allowed that Act to stand as it was. It seems to me so strange and so difficult to understand why they are seeking to give so much power to the insurance officer.
We have to remember that in these cases we are dealing with men who are under the Insurance Fund, and who are only unemployed for 26 weeks. The need to keep men fit for work is the justification for all these training centres, but a man who has only been off work less than 26 weeks does not stand in need of being kept fit for work. I can understand that argument being used for men who may have been unemployed for two or three years, but I cannot understand it being used for men in this category. These training centres and instructional courses would never have been started for men out of employment for less than 26 weeks. A man may have good cause for not attending one of these authorised courses. He may be a man who, having been such a short time out of employment, may be expected to drop into a job at any time. He may have his eye on a job which he hopes to get in a few days or a few weeks, and it would be unwise to make a man like that go to an instructional centre or a training course with the risk of losing the chance of a job. It is not always convenient for men to leave their homes to go to a training centre. A man may have a wife and family, and the centre may be miles
away. It would not be wise to ask such a man to go miles to a centre and leave his wife and family. This looks like one of the steps for the breaking up of family life. Hon. Members opposite often charge Socialists with standing for the breaking up of family life. In this instance, hon. Members opposite are actually taking steps which will really mean that. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question to which he attempted to give an answer the other night. When an insurance officer stops a man's benefit because he does not give a sufficient cause for not going to a training centre, where is the man to go for assistance? When this question was put to the Parliamentary Secretary the other night he seemed rather hesitant in his reply as if he were not sure of his ground. Does such a man come under Part II of the Bill—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member must raise that point on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." His Amendment is strictly limited to whether or not the fifth statutory provision should be a ground on which an insurance officer should not disqualify a man, and the hon. Member must keep to the point with regard to good cause.

Mr. BATEY: I bow to your Ruling, but it seemed to me that if an insurance officer has the power to stop a man's benefit, we should know where the Ministry expect the man to go. It seems that he must either come under Part II or go to the workhouse, because public assistance committees under this Bill have not power to grant Poor Law relief in such cases. It seems strange that when a man's benefit is stopped he will still receive payment from the Treasury if he has to come under Part II. I leave that point, however, as I recognise that we shall be able to deal with it again.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: It may possibly be a little out of order, but I ask your indulgence to reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). The answer is that if a man is disallowed benefit he can go to the Assistance Board and his case will be considered by them under the usual procedure. The question would also arise
whether he comes within the scope of Clause 35, but provision is made for that. There is no question of going to the workhouse, because the public assistance committee has no power under this Bill.

Mr. BATEY: Although the public assistance committee is prevented from giving Poor Law relief, does not the Bill give the Assistance Board power to order a man to the workhouse?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, in certain circumstances set out in the Clauses later on. He would not go to the workhouse until he had been before the board, obviously. May I bring the Debate on this Amendment to a close by telling the hon. Member that we are prepared to accept it?

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: This is at last a sigh of grace on the part of the Government, and, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I express our gratitude for this concession.

Amendment agreed to.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. NUNN: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert:
(2) The following sub-section shall be substituted for sub-section (5) of section eight of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930:
(5) Subject as hereinafter provided, an appeal shall lie to the umpire from any decision of the court of referees as follows:

(a) at the instance of an insurance officer, in any case;
(b) at the instance of the claimant—

(i) appealing direct or through an association of employed persons, provided that the leave of the court of referees shall be obtained upon the submission, within three days, of a reasoned application; and
(ii) in any case in which the decision of the court of referees is not unanimous.


Provided that in any case in which a decision of a court of referees is not unanimous notice in writing of the fact shall be given by the court to the claimant within three days of the decision, and an appeal under this sub-section must be brought within six months of the date of the decision of the court of referees or such longer period as the umpire may in any case for special reasons allow.
In order to make this Amendment clear, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the 1930 Act. Hon. Members will be
aware that under that Act the right of appeal from a court of referees is given under certain conditions, first of all, to an insurance officer, who has a right in any case. I am dealing with the second right, namely, the right of an association of employed persons to appeal. The ordinary person who is not a member of an association of employed persons may only appeal with the leave of the court of referees when some principle is involved or there is something to which appears to the court of referees to be a special circumstance. I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to that particular point. It is obvious that "an association of employed persons" is in the main a trade union, although the British Legion is included in the category. It would be easy in arguing for this Amendment to be provocative and to indulge in a platform speech attacking trade unionism. I do not propose to do anything of that sort. One recognises the extremely valuable work that trade unions do, and, although we know that grievances and injustices occur, we recognise that injustices occur in other walks of life as well. I am sure that hon. Members opposite who are particularly interested in trade unionism are as horrified as I am when they come across instances of improper pressure being brought through their organisations.
I base my case for this Amendment on an entirely different argument. The basis of the arguments and the faith of hon. Members opposite is that there should be no class distinction. I claim that the existing conditions set up a very plain class distinction because a class of person has a special privilege which is denied to any other class. The class thus privileged amounts to something like one-quarter of the insured employed persons. They enjoy a special privilege of a right of appeal in any case which three-quarters of the insured workers do not enjoy. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree that that is a class distinction, and I shall be surprised to learn from them that they support it. The Amendment does not exclude members of trade unions from being placed on a par with their fellow workers, for the Amendment provides that:
an appeal shall lie to the umpire … at the instance of the claimant appealing direct or through an association of employed persons.
Therefore, the trade union which quite properly wished to help its members would be able to provide that help by assisting a claimant to draw up his reasoned application. I should like to say, in parenthesis, that I do not claim that the wording of the Amendment is perfect. I recognise the difficulty of putting a proper impediment in the way of frivolous applications for appeal, and I do not claim that my provision of "a reasoned application" is necessarily the most perfect form. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to assure the Committee that this matter will be considered. I submit that it is wise to give the leave to appeal to the court of referees. That definitely takes away the privilege that has been enjoyed up to the present by members of associations, but, in view of the fact that the whole of the workers coming under insurance will by this Amendment be put exactly on the same standing, I think it is only just and I hope that hon. Members on the other side will be willing to express their agreement with me on the ground that they are by their nature and politics and by their manner of thought conscientious objectors to anything like class distinction.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The proposal contained in the Amendment made by my hon. Friend and successor the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn) is interesting and has something to be said for it at first glance. He realises, I think, that the actual wording of the Amendment would not be satisfactory, and he will realise it all the more when I tell him that its effect would be still further to curtail the right of a man who does not belong to a trade union to appeal against the decision of a court of referees to the Umpire. But on the broad question whether it is right and proper to restrict or remove the right of a trade union to appeal to the Umpire, on behalf of one of its members, against a decision of the court of referees, I am free to confess that I do not think a very good case can be made out, because I do not, think it can fairly be said that the trade unions have encouraged frivolous appeals to the Umpire. On the contrary, from all I hear, if the full figures were known, they would show, probably, that they turn down many times the number of requests from their members that ultimately go forward to
the Umpire. The comparatively high percentage of successful appeals they make proves, I think, that they exercise a great deal of discrimination in the cases they carry to London. Although at first glance there is, no doubt, something to be said for the hon. Member's proposal, for the reasons I have given I think he will not be astonished to hear that the Government cannot accept his Amendment, and I hope he will withdraw it and allow us to get on to the next business.

8.2 p.m.

Sir J. WALKER-SMITH: I do not think the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary is very satisfactory. All that he has said, in short, is that whilst under the provisions of the existing legislation, certain levers have been placed in the hands of trade unions as a matter of practice they have not always used them. Although the Government will not accept the Amendment, I shall support it, because if it were accepted it would achieve very desirable objects. In the first place, it would achieve the very satisfactory object of bringing about uniformity between those who are trade unionists and those who are not in the matter of these appeals, and in the second place it would remove from trade union officials not only the power but the temptation to act unfairly—to use those levers which the Minister of Labour seems to be so anxious to put into their hands to induce or concuss non-unionists into membership. As things stand, there is an undesirable discrimination in the matter of the recognition of associations of employers as contrasted with the recognition of associations of operatives. That obtains in various ways and, among others, in a case of this kind. In the event of an insured worker refusing work upon the ground that in the locality where the work is available there is something in the nature of a trade dispute, a trade union is empowered to intervene and make representations, whereas no such power is available to an association of employers. If it were a question of unfair discrimination between employers' associations and operatives' associations, I should not think it necessary, for the time being, to raise my voice in protest, but it is on account of the discrimination against non-trade unionists that I wish to support the Amendment.
I do not think any one in the Committee would wish to detract from the powers and prestige of trade unions. Most certainly I do not, for a variety of reasons; for this if for no other, that the more powerful the trade unions are the better able are they satisfactorily to enter into collective bargains and arrangements with employers, and to see that agreements are honoured in order to maintain peace in industry. But to have unfair discrimination between trade unionists and non-trade unionists will not do anything to strengthen the position of the trade unions, and I cannot think that there is not a certain amount of resentment over the discrimination found in Section 8 of the Act of 1930 to which attention has been called. The non-trade unionist is put to very great difficulties if he wishes to make an appeal to the Umpire. It is necessary for him to obtain the leave of the court, it is necessary for him to make it appear to the court that important questions of principle are raised, or to show that there are special circumstances; whereas if a man is a member of a trade union or any body of employers, none of these restrictions obtain, and he can make his appeal without having to overcome all those difficulties, which are very considerable difficulties. I think one must agree that there is something quite wrong about discrimination of that kind, and if trade unionists would take a long view they would support this Amendment. I am afraid they will not do so, however, and even if they did, as the Minister of Labour has spoken for the Government, it would not be of very much use.
I have no desire to waste time, but I wish to emphasise that it is very undesirable for the Minister to place these levers in the hands of trade unionists, to tempt them to force non-trade unionists into unions, much as I would like to see them there. I do not say that the Minister should accept any special responsibility for the provisions of the Act of 1930, which under this Bill are being re-enacted, but I think the wording of Sub-section (2) is a little unfortunate, for in that case he is making the position of the non-trade unionist a little more difficult than it was before. Previously, there was no very great temptation for the non-trade unionist to succumb to the pressure of a trade union
official to join a union unless and until trouble was impending, but under these particular provisions the Minister of Labour proposes to make it very much more simple for officials to tempt, if they desire to tempt, and I sincerely hope they will not do so, a trade unionist to come under the umbrella long before it begins to rain. I can see no good reason why the Minister should place these levers in the hands of trade union officials, and I do not see why he should wish to discriminate between the trade unionist and the non-unionist. These provisions will apply to about 12,000,000 people, of whom only 3,500,000 are trade unionists. I am sorry the Minister has not seen fit to accept this Amendment, but I presume the Mover of it will refrain from going any further.

Mr. NUNN: In view of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, and as I have had the opportunity of airing a view which has long been mine, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: Before the hon. Member receives the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment I wish to ask a question of you personally, Sir Dennis. I put in a manuscript Amendment to delete Sub-section (2). If the Amendment of the hon. Member had been persisted in there would have been no necessity to move my Amendment for the deletion of Sub-section (2).

The CHAIRMAN: The question actually before the Committee is "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," and that is the equivalent of what would have been put if the hon. Member's Amendment had been moved.

Mr. MAXTON: So that if I proceed with the point I wish to raise now it will relieve me of the necessity of moving my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member does not do so now he will not get a chance, because if the Committee decide that the words are to stand part of the Clause he will not have an opportunity of moving his Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: My reasons for wishing this Sub-section (2) to be deleted are not the same as those of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Sir J. Walker-
Smith). He is very anxious that the man who is not a trade unionist should have similar rights to those of a trade unionist. I agree with him to this extent—that a man who is not a trade unionist through long-continued unemployment is in a different category from the person who is a non-trade unionist simply by neglect. I am not anxious to impose on the Umpire the duty of considering every case which might be put forward by any one of the insured persons, because that is what it would amount to if this proposal were carried to its logical conclusion—that any one dissatisfied with a local decision could take it to a court of referees and from there up to the Umpire; and we could not have what is the highest court in the land on this particular issue cluttered up with a whole lot of cases on which decisions had already been given. I imagine that the presumption behind giving trade unions a special right of appeal is that a trade union, being a responsible body, not anxious to occupy its time with trivialities, will not assume the responsibility of preparing a case for the Umpire unless there is some basis for it. While that is true of a trade union, the Sub-section as at present drafted would cut out the rights of certain other organisations which are recognised as having the right of carrying a case beyond the local courts. I am very much concerned to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary something about this—if he has not already said something, because, unfortunately, although I returned to the Chamber as soon as I saw his name, he had resumed his seat when I got here, and he may have said something very important in that relatively short time.
The case that I am anxious to put before him is that of a definitely recognised unemployment workers' movement which up till to-day have had the right to carry cases to appeal to the higher court of the Ministry of Labour insurance system. The wording of the Sub-section lays it down that a person shall not
be deemed to be a member of any association of employed persons unless he was a member thereof on the last date on which he was employed.
It is true that unemployed workers' movements admit employed persons into their ranks, but normally a man does not join an unemployed workers' movement unless he is an unemployed man, and probably one who has been so long un-
employed that he has been unable to maintain his trade union connections. A great difficulty is therefore placed upon an unemployed workers' organisation—and I am speaking particularly of the one which has been longest established, and which has been most active, the National Unemployed Workers' Movement. A very great responsibility, and very great technical difficulties are raised, for that organisation and for the Minister, if, before that organisation can make an appeal they have to prove that the claimant was a member of the organisation before he was an unemployed man.
I want to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary if this is a deliberate attempt to cut out the right of these organisations, which have specialised in the problems of unemployment insurance, and which have developed a fair amount of knowledge and capacity in the handling of unemployed insurance cases. I want to know if this Sub-section is drawn deliberately to exclude these unemployed workers' associations from appealing on behalf of their members, irrespective of whether those members are employed or unemployed, and of the precise date at which the members joined a particular unemployed organisation. If the Minister is unable to satisfy me in regard to the right of these organisations, which they have hitherto enjoyed, of acting as appellants on behalf of their members, and which, as far as I know, they have not abused, and if it is the view of the Ministry that Sub-section (2) withdraws that right from them, I shall be compelled to vote against the inclusion of that Sub-section.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary might have replied to him. The Amendment, which is in the names of several hon. Gentlemen, improves the position in many respects, and I support it, but before their Amendment could be accepted the part of the Clause that we are seeking to deal with would have to be deleted. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, I will take a practical case. An organisation has been operating in this country for some years, called the
National Unemployed Workers' Movement. Most people simply dismiss that organisation, by saying that it is Communist. Because it is Communist it must be dismissed. Trade unions to a large extent also say that the organisation is Communist and is therefore outside the pale. We should not use adjectives whether "Communist" or "Bolshevist," or anything which is a substitute for reason and argument. When people are arguing against a movement, they ought not to dismiss it with a prejudiced case and a name, but ought to meet it fairly. I am not called upon to defend that movement in its wider work, but only to make a statement as concerns the case of unemployed people on whose behalf they appeal to the Umpire. I am not going to argue whether this thing or that thing that they do is right or wrong, but whether it is just to take away their right to appeal to the Umpire.
In common with many other people, I have frequently been to the Umpire, and every one who goes before him takes up his time, according to the ability with which the case is stated. It might be as well if this Committee faced up to the reason why associations were given the right to appeal to the Umpire. Every member of an association of working people is refused the right of appeal at a court of referees, whether the court is unanimous or not. Those who are not in an organisation only have the right of appeal from a court of referees to the Umpire if the court's decision is unanimous, or the court gives him special leave to appeal. Organised workers have that right, no matter what the court of referees may determine. The reason for that goes back to the Blanesburgh Committee, and is that organised associations do not appeal on every case which is turned down, but exercise their knowledge and pick out those on which they will appeal. It may be that the National Unemployed Workers' Movement did not know the work at the time of their origin. I did not know the work, and sometimes I think that many people do not yet know the work. That Movement may have followed a rough and ready fashion of appealing in a large number of cases, but I can tell the Minister that I have watched them at work before the Umpire during recent years, and I can honestly say of them
that I have never seen a body improve so much, both in the presentation of facts and the statement of a case, and even in the selection of cases.
Let the Minister consult those who are working day by day before the Umpire—not the Umpire himself, but the officials of the Ministry, or those who carry out the duties of the Umpire's office. If he does, he will find that the National Unemployed Workers' Movement will compare, as regards the statement of their case, with any other organised body. I can speak feelingly about these cases before the Umpire, because I have given thought, time and attention to the law on the matter, and I can say that in recent years the Ministry has lost nothing in dignity or capacity from the presence of representatives of this body. Indeed, it is in some respects to the advantage of the Minister that they should be there, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it has happened from time to time that cases submitted to courts of referees have been turned down and then, when the organised workers have appealed, the Minister has been aided by their appealing and getting decisions which have put right things that otherwise might well have been wrong. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to think twice before cutting out a body which represents a considerable number of people.
If they are cut out, it will hurt, not only the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, but others as well. An unemployed man may decide to join his trade union even while he is unemployed. At some time subsequently he may be disallowed benefit, and although in some cases the trade unions, wisely enough, are attempting to entice unemployed people back to their ranks, yet, if they join when they are unemployed, this valuable right is not allowed to be given them, though they are usually the very people who need it most. I remember that in Bristol there is an Unemployed Workers' Movement, which has done extremely valuable work. It is not connected officially with either one side of the movement or the other, but is what one might term an independent unemployed organisation. It tried to run in harness with general Labour and trade union sentiment, though it did not do so officially. That movement appealed
in many cases, and it has never abused its position in Bristol. Its members were mainly people of the most unfortunate section of the community, to whom some organisation whereby they could retain their rights was most valuable. The Trade Union Congress, for good or ill, some time ago decided to start en organisation similar in many respects to the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, through the agency of the trades councils of the country, and, if this Clause is carried, every one of those unemployed organisations set up by the trades councils will have no right of appeal to the Umpire in any case in which the individual concerned was not a member of them when he was employed.
We knew that we should be met with the argument that this body was associated with wrong people. I do not wish to boast, but I think I speak on this matter with as much knowledge of the Umpire and his work as anyone in the House, and I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that the inclusion of the National Unemployed Workers' Movement would not only not bring him any discredit, but in recent years, through their skill in putting their case and the wisdom of their action before the Umpire, they have done themselves credit and have been able to assist many decent men and women to get just recognition of what I think is their right. Therefore, as regards that part of the Clause which this Amendment seeks to delete, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will see his way to meet us.
A year or two ago, as is well known, the Umpire's department was overloaded with cases, and often one had to wait three or four weeks before a hearing could be given. It may be true that at that time all kinds of associations were appealing, but it must be remembered that at that period the whole framework of appeals was altered and the framework of the Act was adjusted, so that the Umpire was flooded with cases. Recently, however, and particularly within the last six months, the Umpire's department has not been flooded with appeals, but, having worked out decisions defining the position in various cases, has obviated the necessity for frequent appeals, and consequently its work has been less and it has resumed its normal way. I trust that the Parlia-
mentary Secretary, free from any feeling or prejudice in this matter, will reconsider his decision in regard to this body, which, although I differ from it in many ways, and have fought elections against it, I have found to be capable of putting its ease as well as anyone.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I am sure that no one who has been in the House for any length of time, and has heard my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), would dream for a moment that he was ever actuated by anything but a perfectly sincere desire to do the best thing possible in all circumstances. But the mere fact that he suggests from his own experience that the condition of affairs with regard to appeals by this particular body has improved of late years shows that in previous years—

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I say that the trade unions also have altered? Every union has improved. The Acts were in a very chaotic state, but all these bodies have improved, and this body possibly more than any other, because it set to work to see that that was done. If I may say so, even the Parliamentary Secretary improves. I hope that no case is going to be made against a body improving. This body has improved, the trade unions have improved, and everybody who does his job will improve.

Mr. HUDSON: I do not suggest that they have not improved; I am only saying that the fact that they have improved is not necessarily an argument against these proposals. The necessity for these proposals is based on a recommendation of the Royal Commission. The Committee will probably remember that the Royal Commission suggested, in paragraph 494 of their Report, that only bodies of employed persons who had been given permission to do so by the Minister should be allowed to make appeals to the Umpire. Obviously, a provision of that sort goes very much further in restricting possible rights of appeal than this provision which we have put in for the purpose of complying with the words of the original Act. It was "an association of employed persons." If you have an association of unemployed persons, that does not comply with the wording of the Act, and it is in order to ensure that the association shall consist of em-
ployed persons at the material time that we have put in these words, which are much less stringent than the proposal of the Royal Commission. Although I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member and his friends, I am afraid that in the circumstances we cannot agree to the suggestion that the Sub-section should be deleted. If between now and Report he can suggest any other form of words which would achieve what we have in mind and he will come and see me, I will most certainly give it consideration as long as we agree on the principle.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand, then, that the Government do not specifically desire to cut out legitimate unemployed workers' organisations and that the intention of the Sub-section is merely to reiterate the existing law in a better form, that organised workers have a right of appeal which is denied to unorganised workers, and that if we could bring forward some form of words which would include organised workers, although they happen to be unemployed, he would endeavour to insert a provision of that sort on Report? There are about 4,000,000 trade unionists out of something like 12,000,000 insured workers, and there is to be a rule laid down which gives to the 4,000,000 a right which is denied to the 8,000,000, even if they are prepared to enter into the form of association which is open to them. That is a terribly serious decision. It is putting up a double standard of justice as it were. I am still endeavouring to get at the mind of the Government. Is this a deliberate attempt to say that the non-trade unionist unemployed are to have no right of appeal.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: No, certainly not, because under the existing law in the case of a man who belongs to no organisation of any sort or kind, there is a right of appeal in certain circumstances. The Royal Commission say that the difficulty arose owing to the fact that the Act of 1930 contains no definition of an association of employed persons. We have endeavoured to get over that difficulty by this Sub-section. If the hon. Member thinks he can devise a better definition, I have offered to look at it between now and Report.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: It seems to me that the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary is entirely at variance with the intention of my hon. Friends, and I do not see how any consultation hereafter can bridge the differences between them, because, as I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary desires to debar from the right of appeal those who did not belong to an organisation at the time of their last employment, whereas my hon. Friends desire that if a man joins any sort of protective association after he becomes unemployed he shall be entitled to make his appeal. The language of the Sub-section intends to make it clear that, unless he belonged to some sort of trade association at the time of his last employment, any association that tries to speak on his behalf afterwards cannot represent him. I am a trade union Member of the House, and I believe that a man ought to join a trade union for protective purposes, but I am not unmindful of the fact that the existence of unemployment and the shifting of industry make it almost impossible for men to join trade unions in some parts of the country. The Parliamentary Secretary is, in effect, depriving many men of the right of appeal at all. In the Nottingham coalfield a man loses his job if he joins a trade union. If the Parliamentary Secretary will agree to pass a law making it a criminal offence for an employer to obstruct the organisation of trade unionists in any way and to punish him if he forbids them to join a trade union, and imposes on employers the obligation to facilitate the organisation of trade unions, we might look more favourably on this proposal. In the last 10 years a very substantial change has come over the physical features of British industry. The old centres of the trade unions were in the North and West, where the basic industries were situated. The coal mining industry itself was in the vanguard of the trade union movement.

Mr. HUDSON: I should like to know whether the Labour party desire to back up the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in having this Sub-section removed or whether they think it ought to stand?

Mr. BEVAN: I am not in the very slightest interested in the question now put.

Mr. HUDSON: On a point of Order. We are discussing the Amendment, and the question is whether or not the hon. Member is for or against it. I have not yet been able to understand.

Mr. BEVAN: I am speaking in favour of any voluntarily organised body of persons being permitted to submit appeals on behalf of their members. I do not care whether it is the Primrose League or the National Unemployed Workers. If the trade unions are going to be incorporated in legislation, let us understand it. If they are going to be regarded as a formal part of the structure of the system of jurisprudence, I am going to claim that they should be protected from intimidation by the employers. In other words, if the existence of a trade union is considered to be necessary for the protection of a man's rights under the law, the law should protect a man who wants to organise a trade union. That is a natural corollary. I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary. He thinks that a man cannot be adequately protected unless he has the right of an appeal through an organisation. He admits that. Surely, you are saying here that you are prepared to allow a man to be represented by his trade union, and it necessarily follows that the man's rights are more properly protected in that way than if he had no organisation at all. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head.

Mr. HUDSON: I am not in the least prepared to admit that a person who does not belong to any organisation at all does not have his right of appeal adequately protected by the existing organisation of the court of referees. In other words, I am not prepared to admit that the court of referees denies leave to appeal to the Umpire in a proper case even when a man is not represented by a trade union.

Mr. BEVAN: I know. The answer, of course, is that in special circumstances the court can permit an appeal, but, if a man is a member of a trade union, he can override a refusal and make an appeal. I think that every hon. Member perhaps, apart from the Parliamentary Secretary, who cannot admit it for the purpose of argument, will agree that the whole principle of British justice is based upon a man's right to select someone to
make an appeal for him. Unless you admit the principle of advocacy, you destroy the whole basis of British jurisprudence, and the whole of our juridical system has, as a matter of fact, been constructed on that basis. The Parliamentary Secretary is denying the rights of advocacy to 8,000,000 people. The proposition I put to hon. Members is that if their rights of advocacy form the basis of justice, and if those rights are circumscribed by the advocacy of a trade union, then, if there exists in this country a body of citizens possessing a power to prevent a man having a trade union, they also have the power to prevent him from having justice under the law. That is the situation. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot run away from the position that a private employer in being permitted by British law to dismiss a man from a trade union, and an Act of Parliament saying that membership of a trade union is necessary for a man to secure advocacy under the law, deprive that man of British justice. Therefore, the corollary of the Parliamentary Secretary's position is that the man should have protection under the law to join a trade union, whereas the opposite is the case. At the Morris motor works at Oxford, a man who joins a trade union is sacked.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to remember the terms of the Amendment which we are discussing.

Mr. BEVAN: I submit, with all respect to you, Sir Dennis, that there are men who cannot and dare not join a union, and that if they are not in a union they cannot have the right to appeal to the Umpire. Consequently, I am asking that in the absence of adequate protection for a man's rights to join a union, he should be allowed to appeal to the Umpire if he is not in a union at the time of his leaving his employer. I submit that that is the position, and I wish to adduce in support of it the experiences of hon. Members in all parts of the House. The newspapers have been full recently of attempts on the part of the Birmingham wholesale butchers to prevent their men from joining a trade union. As I have said, there are in connection with the Morris Motor Works "open" shops along the Great West Road, and new industries are starting nearly every week. They are "open" shops, and if a man joins a union he loses his job.

The CHAIRMAN: I must rule that the hon. Member is now getting beyond the scope of the Amendment under discussion, and I must ask him to keep more closely to it.

Mr. BEVAN: I must ask for your protection, Sir. I should like to refer, if you will permit me, to the language of the Clause. The original wording of the Section is as follows:
Subject as hereinafter provided, an appeal shall lie to the Umpire from any decision of the court of referees as follows:

(a) at the instance of an insurance officer, in any case;
(b) at the instance of an association of employed persons of which the claimant is a member."

The language of the Clause of the Bill before the Committee leaves that out.
It says:
For the purposes of paragraph (b) Sub-section (5) of Section eight of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930 (which specifies some of the persons at whose instance an appeal shall lie from a court of referees), a claimant for benefit shall not, in relation to any appeal, be deemed to be a member of any association of employed persons unless he was a member thereof on the last date on which he was employed before the claim subject to the appeal was made.
It means that if a man was a member of a trade union at the time when he lost his employment he would have the right of appeal to the Umpire in the event of an appeal becoming necessary. If he was not a member of the union, whether voluntarily or unvoluntarily, such a right of appeal would not lie. The purpose of the Amendment is to secure his right to join an association afterwards becoming unemployed and the association's right to make an appeal on his behalf. The substance of my case is that under the conditions as they exist to-day a man runs the risk of losing his employment if he joins a trade union, and, therefore, in the absence of protection of his right to join a union, the association he subsequently joins should have the right of appeal on his behalf. That is my contention, and I reinforce it by pointing out that there are industries in Great Britain in which a man cannot join a trade union without running the risk of unemployment.

The CHAIRMAN: That is just where I think the hon. Member is getting too far afield.

Mr. BEVAN: I thought that I was entitled to give examples to show that in many industries employers victimise men for joining trade unions and therefore withhold from them the protection which Parliament is trying to give to them. That is my contention.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that that is getting too far away from the subject and the discussion.

Mr. BEVAN: I thought that I could give instances to show that men cannot enjoy their rights under the law without running the risk of being unemployed. If I cannot follow that line of argumet, I shall have to adopt other lines.

Mr. LAWSON: May I point out that the whole of the Sub-section which is being discussed swings upon the point as to whether a man is a member of a union or not previous to his being out of employment. It seems to me that it is the whole essence of the argument as to whether a man is a mmber of a union or as to the conditions on which he can be a member of the union.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite correct, and, if the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had kept within those limits, I should not have intervened.

Mr. BEVAN: I may be in a very wooden state, but I cannot see the difference between what was said by the hon. Member who preceded me and what I have submitted. I was trying to point out that the only reason for the inclusion of these words in the Act is that the member should be protected from disability if he desires to join a trade union. It is only very recently that the trade unions have been given this sort of status, and it is significant that the status has been given when the trade unions are weakest and unable to exercise the right conferred upon them. In the mining industry and the heavy industries the unions are strong and have been for many years, but there are new industries where the trade unions are weak. It is not equity under the law to confer upon a man who is employed by a reasonable and good employer a legal right which is withheld from the man who is employed by a bad employer.
I do not understand why voluntary associations are being discriminated against. I hold no brief for the National Unemployed Workers' movement. I am opposed to it, but I stand for the rights of a British subject to join whatever organisation he likes. Once I began to concede the right to the Government to discriminate between different sorts of organisations the next step they might take might be against mine. The only safe ground that I can take in this matter is to protect the rights of all British citizens to join any association they like, before I can defend the right to join mine. In a year or two if the trade unions should happen to earn the right hon. Gentleman's displeasure, he might bring in a Bill to take away the right of appeal from them. On what ground can I agree to permit the right hon. Gentleman to take away the right from other persons? I take my stand, not upon the insular ground that one form of organisation ought to have the right of appeal as against another organisation, but upon the substantial and fundamental ground that an Englishman has the right to join these voluntary associations and that these voluntary associations should have equal status under the law.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in the role of defender of the British Trade Union Congress, does not look very nice. He does not look at ease in that role. The general council of the Trade Union Congress and the trade union movement as a whole have fallen to a pretty low condition when they require the defence of the Parliamentary Secretary. The line that he is taking this evening is a line which indicates and will indicate to the country that the general council of the Trade Union Congress and trade unionists as a whole are his favourites as against some other form of association. I object to that form of propaganda against the trade unions. I object entirely to his telling the workers of the country that the National Unemployed Workers' Committee are such effective defenders of the unemployed that they ought not to be allowed to function on their behalf and that the trade unions are so weak that he is perfectly prepared to give them that status. I can see myself faced by representatives of the National Unemployed Workers' movement saying to me: "The Parliamentary Secretary is so frightened of us that he
takes away our rights of appeal to the Umpire, but he is so satisfied with the inadequacy and docility of the trade unions that he is prepared to allow them to retain the right of appeal. He is afraid of us."

Mr. MAXTON: That is the truth.

Mr. BEVAN: The more the National Government smile upon the trade unions the more the trade unions blight and wither away. The less the National Government approve of us the stronger we are. This paragraph is a sort of Moscow plot. I suspect that its real purpose is to undermine the trade unionists in Great Britain and to convince them that their real allies are in the National Unemployed Workers Movement. I want to protect the trade unions against that form of attack, against this propaganda on behalf of subversive organisations. What I am saying is not incredible. Perhaps this is a concession made for the Trade Agreement with Moscow. Perhaps this is a quid pro quo. The trade unions of Great Britain can strengthen themselves much more by not having this sort of sinister support. We could have had this long ago if we had wanted it. There were lots of employers who were prepared to take the trade unions under their, wing, but we did not want to get under their wing.

The CHAIRMAN: I must seriously warn the hon. Member, for the third time, that he is going very much outside the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: I was about to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I was led away into some fanciful speculations as to where this proposal originated, because I cannot see the explanation on the surface. I submit seriously to the House that we are not entitled to deprive millions of British subjects of their right of appeal under the law by permitting reactionary employers to take that right away from them by dismissing them for joining trade unions.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. I speak now as an active trade unionist and one of the few hon. Members who is chairman of a trade union. I know, therefore, something about trade union procedure. We must try and judge this question without
any feeling whatever. This is the position. A man is punished under the Bill, and sometimes the punishment may be more severe than that inflicted by a criminal court. He may be disallowed six weeks' benefit. The court of referees decide that they are justified in inflicting that punishment. He can bring with him before the court of referees anyone to advocate his case except a lawyer, but the same man, if he is charged in a criminal court and is a very poor individual, is able under the Poor Persons Act, to have a lawyer to give him free legal advice.
The cases which we are now considering will usually be those of persons who have been out of employment for a long time, the most unfortunate of the unemployed. Before the court of referees he is allowed representation, but if the court gives him leave to appeal no one can appear before the Umpire on his behalf, unless he was in an organisation on the last day on which he was working. If the same person was a criminal you would supply him with counsel in order that he might be properly defended. Some time ago the Trades Union Congress decided to form an unemployed organisation. Perhaps it was a method of inviting people back to the trade unions. If you do not allow these poor people to be represented before the Umpire it means that decisions will be given for which the Umpire will be blamed, whereas in fact, he will not be to blame because the case will not have been properly presented.
There was a little quarrel in the House last night in which I hesitated to join because as in the case of a quarrel between man and wife it is generally the one who tries to be the peacemaker who gets gaoled. Last night there was a little difference on an Amendment. I am saying this in order to show how important it is that these cases should be defended before the Umpire. Under the Act a child who is incapacitated can get benefit up to the age of 16, but an Umpire decided that a child can only get benefit up to the age of 16, even if it is incapacitated, if it can be proved that it is likely to get education up to the age of 16. In other words, if a child is not likely to be educated up to the age of 16, although incapacitated, it is
to be disqualified. That decision was taken with no one putting the contrary view. It was made by a Deputy Umpire without any one appearing before him. The Minister has a right to appear before the Umpire, but the poor man has no right unless he belongs to an organisation. Judicial decisions cannot be made unless both sides of the case are heard. In the case of the child a decision of far-reaching importance was given.
We are dealing to-day with the car-case of the Bill; the Umpire will fill it in by the decisions which he will make. I go before the Umpire perhaps more than any other hon. Member in the House, and I pride myself that I can induce him to change his mind. It is wrong for these decisions to be made without someone being there to state the opposite side of the case. Men who appear before a criminal court, if they are poor, are supplied with free legal advice, but when the man is poor and unemployed you are proposing to deprive him of the valuable right of advocating his case unless he joins an organisation. The sooner the House of Commons starts to do what it thinks to be right without wondering what this or that person thinks the better.
One of the horrible things about Parliament is that the question is so often asked, "What is someone else thinking?" The unemployed person should have the fullest right of getting his case stated before the Umpire. The House of Commons would support me to a man if the word "Communist" could not be flung about here. I know the difficulty. The main association of unemployed is connected with the Communists. But if this matter were judged on its merits it would be decided as I suggest. We ask for the unemployed no more than has been given to the criminal section of the population. The Minister will do his Umpire an injustice if he passes the Clause as it stands. An Umpire might well come to a decision which the Minister would afterwards regret. I remember that on one occasion the miners attached so much importance to an appeal that they employed a first class counsel to act for them. The present Foreign Secretary was employed by the Miners' Federation to plead their case before the Umpire in a famous trade
union dispute. The unemployed man should have someone to state his case free from all prejudice.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The impression left on my mind after listening to the last two speeches is that the two hon. Members destroyed their own case by overstating it. If I believed that the case put forward by them were true it would lead me to conclude that the first of the steps that ought to be taken to deal with it is to abolish forthwith the right of any trade union to appear on behalf of its members, because the case they made is the case of gross and flagrant injustice in which 25 per cent. of the employed workers of the country enjoy privileges which are not available to the 75 per cent. who are unorganised. I am merely stating the impression made on my mind, and I think made on the mind of any reasonable Member of the Committee who listened dispassionately to what the hon. Members said. The fact is that the real situation bears not the faintest resemblance to the case that they made out. The truth is that the ordinary man not belonging to a trade union is given a right of appeal in proper cases by the court of referees, and that the statutory officers do their best to help the Umpire to form an unbiased judgment on the whole of the facts put before him. It is precisely in order to assist him to do that, that we have laid down in this Clause a new provision that the finding shall be set forth in writing and that it should state the facts and reasons why the right of appeal is granted.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) made a good deal of play about my alleged defence of the Trades Union Congress. I was merely trying to be fair. I showed that the proposals in this Bill are nothing like as drastic and severe as the proposals of the Royal Commission, and in order not to bring any controversial matter into the Debate, I refrained from quoting the reasons that led the Royal Commission to come to the conclusion that they reached. Since the hon. Member has raised the question I prefer to read the evidence given by the Trades Union Congress, which was one of the most important factors in causing the Royal Commission to come to its conclusion. This is what the Trades
Union Congress said in its written memorandum of evidence:
We think that appeals should be confined to all Trade Unions and to Associations of employed persons other than Trade Unions, but having arrangements with the Ministry of Labour under Section 17 of the 1920 Act. … We are convinced that by limiting appeals to all Trade Unions and also to Associations as suggested, unnecessary appeals would not be forwarded, but we regard it as very important that the right of appeal should be confined to the type of organisation referred to. Other cases will be protected by the right to give permission to appeal vested in the court of referees.
That is what the Royal Commission recommended. We base this proposal on the suggestion of the Trades Union Congress. The Trades Union Congress in their oral evidence said that the right of appeal had been given by Umpire's decision to an organisation of unemployed persons, and that in their view this was not an Association representing employed people as they would understand it. That was the Trades Union Congress. They gave as the reason that they did not regard it as an Association, not the fact that it consisted of persons unemployed and employed, but because there was no machinery for placing people in industry, and because they were not a body for negotiating wages and conditions. That brings me back to the point that I made some time ago, when I said that the words in the Act of 1930 were "An Association of employed persons." We are dealing here with persons who have just lost their employment; we are not dealing with persons who have been unemployed for very long periods. It is precisely because we are dealing with bodies of employed persons, precisely because the court of referees and the Umpire deal with them, that we think the suggestions made by the Trades Union Congress are reasonable, and for that reason we have embodied them in this particular fashion rather than adopted the more drastic proposals of the Royal Commission. For these reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I am profoundly dissatisfied. The excerpts that the Parliamentary Secretary has read, while they undoubtedly represent the desire of the Trades Union Congress to have the dominating say in the treatment of all employed persons and unemployed per-
sons as well, do not represent any justification for this Sub-section. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that trade unionism at the moment deals with fewer than 4,000,000 people. The fund, of which the Minister and he are the principal custodians, deals with nearly 12,000,000 people, and may, when this legislation is concluded, deal with more; it would mean a considerable addition. We, sitting in this House of Commons, are not trade union representatives. Whatever our origins and outside associations may be, when we are here we represent particular constituencies consisting of the general body of the people. The Minister coolly comes here and tells us that out of these 12,000,000 insured persons whose rights in this fund are supposed to be equally guarded, 4,000,000 are to have the advantage of fighting for their rights up to the highest court of the land, but that the other 8,000,000 are to have only the lesser appeals, unless the lower courts specifically give them the right to appeal to the higher court. It is not right, and no amount of argument by the Minister or any amount of pressure by the Trades Union Congress can make it right. Particularly is it wrong to say that a man must be a member of his association before he becomes unemployed; that the only organisation that can appeal for him is the particular union in which he happened to be at the time that he was last in a job.
I am quite sure that the Committee does not realise what is being done. I cannot understand why it is being done. I wish there had been something like a decent attendance here at the earlier stages of this discussion; unfortunately, this is one of the worst hours of the day, when many hon. Members have to absent themselves. The Minister is now laying it down that the only unemployed persons who can appeal to the Umpire, as opposed to the court of referees, are those who happened to be members of the trade unions approved by the Trades Union Congress, and that no other association can appeal on behalf of an unemployed person or a group of unemployed persons.
I am putting in an appeal on behalf of the National Unemployed Workers' Movement. I make no apologies for
doing this; I have done the work and was doing it when others would not try to do it. Hard, unremunerative work it is, to take up the grievances of the unemployed and to try to fight their battles; it is not a job to bring money or kudos. This association has fought their grievances and is fighting them now. Under the existing legislation is has the right to appeal on behalf of its members to the Umpire; it has not abused that right in any way. The proposed legislation takes away that right, and the only reason that has been brought before the Committee in support of the taking away of that right from the National Unemployed Workers' Movement—the only argument brought forward by the National Government—is that the Trades Union Congress asked them to do it. Listen to that, coming as a reason in support of legislation from the Treasury Bench! I can remember the hue and cry that arose from those benches when the Labour Government was in office because the Trades Union Congress had been passing resolutions and bringing pressure to bear upon the Government. I cannot remember the late Labour Government surrendering so completely on any issue to a demand of the Trades Union Congress as the present Government are doing on this particular issue.

Mr. COVE: Not even in 1931?

Mr. MAXTON: Not during the period of the Labour Government. I cannot remember it being done. The only reason given by the National Government is that the Trades Union Congress asked them to deny to any other association the right of appeal on behalf of unemployed men, and the Minister refuses to make any attempt to alter Sub-section (2).
Certain Conservative Members at the beginning of this Debate put forward an Amendment, and it is on that Amendment that we are still debating, because it was just at the point when the hon. Member who moved it was asking leave to withdraw that I intervened, and the leave to withdraw has been withheld. No reasons were given why that Amendment of his should be withdrawn, and I am going to continue to resist its being withdrawn. I am urging that we should get now, before we depart from this Sub-section, a promise from the Minister somewhat bigger than that which the
Parliamentary Secretary gave me before. The Parliamentary Secretary said that if I would come forward between now and the Report stage and presumably change his mind entirely on this issue and on the report of the Royal Commission, some words might be inserted on the Report stage. I do not think he was being serious at that moment; he was putting forward the idea that since I could not get a majority in this Committee in support of my point of view, the private talk we should have would be friendly but quite innocuous. I am not expecting that. I believe that I can get a majority in this Committee to realise that this is not fair business.
Unless the Minister is prepared now to tell us that these 12,000,000 who are on the Unemployment Insurance Fund to-day are to be treated with exactly equal justice, whatever their other associations may be, I shall vote for the deletion of the Sub-section. So far as we are concerned they are 12,000,000 insured persons, all equal in our eyes. We have nothing to do with whether they are in the Band of Hope or the Primrose League or the Boy Scouts or any other organisation. So far as the fund is concerned, they are all members of the fund and should all have equal rights under the fund. This sub-section does not give them equal rights, and I am going to vote for its deletion unless the Minister can give us something in the way of a concession on the matter.

9.35 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: I wish to submit shortly another view of this question. A number of my constituents have had occasion to go before the Umpire on various points and there are others who would have done so, if they had had the opportunity. In the North of Scotland there are very few trade unions and these people do not wish to join trade unions. But, not being members of trade unions, they are denied rights which they would probably enjoy if they lived in other parts of the country. I cannot understand why the Government should go out of their way to try to drive the people into trade unions by giving those unions rights which can only be enjoyed in the more populous parts of the country.
It has been said that the right of appeal has been abused, but it seems to me that the change which is proposed
will make matters worse. Previously when a person had gone before the court of referees and had been refused the right to appeal to the Umpire, a union would go to that insured person and invite him or her to join. There was no necessity, however, for such a person to join until the question of the right of appeal arose. Under the change in the law which is proposed here, the union will be able to go to people like my constituents and say to them, "It is no use waiting until the question of appeal arises. You must make sure beforehand, because you do not know which of you may require to call upon our services." That will make the position of those persons a great deal worse than it is at present.
I cannot agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that everything is right with regard to the present system of appeals. I think the system is far from satisfactory at the present time. I agree that it is difficult to suggest schemes under which everything will be satisfactory, but I think I am entitled, on an occasion of this kind, to give an example of what happens to-day. Certain cases were brought to my notice by the county council in my division of girl fish workers who were en masse refused benefit and refused the right of appeal to the Umpire. The strange thing was that in some of these cases the persons concerned had been refused the previous year but had been able to go to the Umpire and had been given their benefit by the Umpire. It seems peculiar that a person should go to the Umpire and get benefit one year and should be refused the right of appeal next year when he goes to the court of referees on exactly the same points. That being the case, I do not see how the Parliamentary Secretary can claim that this system is working well. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that, unless these people have expert advice and assistance, it is very difficult for them to put their cases properly before the court of referees. In some instances I daresay that possibly does not matter, but there must be many cases in which the person who goes to the court of referees about these matters is incapable of putting his case because he does not know what he has to prove.
I had recently brought to my notice the case of a number of distillery workers. No one ever suggested that these were
seasonal workers. They had been going on year after year but suddenly last summer—it would seem on instructions from high quarters—they were refused benefit on the ground that they were probably seasonal workers. Some of them went to the court of referees. It was impossible for them to argue their cases because they did not understand what they were supposed to argue. Eventually some of them did go to the Umpire and some of them were allowed benefit, but I am certain that the men themselves had no earthly idea of why some of them got benefit while others did not. Some of these questions are very difficult indeed and quite beyond the comprehension of the persons who are appealing. I urge upon the Minister that some system should be devised whereby such people will be enabled to put their cases properly. As I have said already, in the North of Scotland the people have practically no trade unions and although some of them were able to make use of an organisation in order to get before the Umpire, they got no expert advice in the ordinary sense through that organisation but had to rely on their own resources. I appeal to the Minister to go into this question. I ask him to listen to those of us who have come into contact with people who go to the court of referees but have no earthly idea of how to put their cases properly. I hope he will believe us when we say that there is involved in this matter a great difficulty which requires his attention and which will, I hope, receive his attention and the attention of his Department as soon as possible.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the Minister a question? The Parliamentary Secretary said, in effect, that this only deals with associations of employed people. At the present time the British Legion has the right of appeal and nobody could claim that it is an association of employed people in this sense. Are we to take it then that the Parliamentary Secretary's proposal is to cut away this right of the British Legion? The British Legion caters for ex-service men and it has the right of appeal and has appealed to the Umpire not once, but many times. Now, even if a man were in the British Legion before, I ques-
tion if he could appeal under this proposal. Unless he was in the British Legion when he was last employed, he is going to have no right of appeal. Nobody would think any the less of a man, if he joined the British Legion after he was unemployed—

Captain FRASER: I do not think the hon. Member is right about the British Legion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am. I have verified it, and if the Minister consults his chief officials—

Captain FRASER: Does the hon. Member suggest that the British Legion have a statutory right?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I say that they have a statutory right equal to that of a trade union. The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was only for employed people, and if that is the case, it affects the British Legion's statutory right.

Mr. KNIGHT: As I understand the matter, members of the British Legion may be employed persons, and in so far as they are employed persons, they can be represented by the Legion. The intention here is to secure that when you are dealing with employed persons you shall deal with the body that represents them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I give way to the hon. and learned Member in matters of high legal importance, but I do not give way to him on unemployment insurance. I know he is a great legal man, but in this matter I place myself before him, with all due deference to him, and I say that the British Legion is a body with a statutory right to appeal to the Umpire. Under this provision, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, a body that can appeal must be an association of employed people. The British Legion do not organise you as an employed person, but as an ex-Service man, and the result is that they must obviously be cut out, if the Parliamentary Secretary is right. The British Legion have, to my knowledge, appealed for men who have become members after they were unemployed, and why should they not have that right? I say that many hon. Members here have only got this aspect of the case in a very limited way, and that it is only people who have engaged in it from day to day who can see the implications of it. No case has been made out that this privilege
in the Act has been abused in any way at all, and until someone can show that there has been a deliberate and flagrant abuse, I think this Committee ought to adhere to the present position.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The British Legion will he in precisely the same position in future as any other body of persons who are entitled to appeal to the Umpire. The only person on whose behalf the British Legion, after the passage of this Bill, will not be entitled to appeal will be someone who happens never to have belonged to the British Legion, who becomes unemployed, and then, after he has become unemployed, joins the Legion with the object of getting someone to appeal on his behalf. But for all existing members of the British Legion and of trade unions, as long as they maintain their membership, the position will not be different.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But if a man is a member of the British Legion and lapses in his membership, although he may have been a member for six years and lapse for only a week, and in that week he is not a member of the Legion, and he subsequently rejoins the Legion, he will have no right of appeal through the Legion. In the great mass of cases in trade unions they are lapsed men, and there are very few joining for the first time. It is a matter of constant rejoining, over and over again, and the trouble with them all is lapsed membership. I say that in the British Legion you are not dealing with a man newly joined, but you are dealing usually with a man rejoining after having had possibly long years of membership before.

9.51 p.m.

Miss WARD: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn). It is not very often that I find myself agreeing with opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), but to-night I have thought that some of his arguments were extraordinarily logical, though no doubt he and I have different objects in view. I wish to extend the privilege of the right of appeal to all individuals under certain circumstances, whether they are members of an organisation or not. I must
say that I take exception to some of the expressions used by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), in opposing the Amendment, because he knows as well as I do that the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven was in no sense an attack on the trade unions, and I think I may claim support of the rights of the trade union movement by my party by merely stating that we were the party that first gave the workers in this country the right to combine.
I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to consider whether, on the Report stage, he can find some form of words which would be acceptable to the supporters of the Amendment, and I do so because in my own experience, as representing an industrial constituency, I have had a large number of people, who have had no idea of their rights, coming to me and asking whether I could make some appeal to the Minister to get decisions of the court of referees or the Umpire reconsidered. I think it must be within the knowledge of the Minister that a great many private individuals who are not members of trade unions have no idea how to present the facts, and obviously they find their case, not having given vital evidence to the court of referees, turned down; and they have then no redress. I also know that on very many occasions men who are claiming benefit, quite legitimately, on being required to attend the court of referees, find themselves in work, and, not knowing that they should send a note to the secretary explaining the position, their case goes by default, and they find themselves deprived of their legitimate rights.
I should say that on those occasions when I have written to the Minister of Labour I have always found that if there is a sound case, the right hon. Gentleman has been extraordinarily sympathetic in bringing to the notice of the insurance officer, with whom the final decision lies, particulars of the individual case, but it seems to me that it is hardly just that private individuals who have a very indifferent knowledge of the rules and regulations and of the way to present their evidence should be penalised when persons who are members of trade unions have the privilege
of appealing. I warmly support the Amendment, because I think it gives a right to all sections of society and not merely to what may be regarded as a privileged few. I hope that the Minister may find some opportunity of revising the conditions which have been laid down in the Bill.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. STEVENSON: I have been very much impressed by a number of arguments that have been put forward for this Amendment. It is most unfortunate where there is a court of appeal of any sort, that there should be a certain precluded class of applicants who cannot have their case stated. It is on that ground that I press the Minister to reconsider his decision. I know that trade unions are only too anxious to do what they can to put before the referees and the Umpire all that they consider necessary for the determination of a particular case, but undoubtedly it is always better for any court to have the case put forward from the point of view of the appellant and from that point of view entirely. I am not very much impressed with the fact that the appeals are based on the evidence given by trade union officials. After all, there are at least 8,000,000 workers who are not members of unions, and it is a matter of considerable comment that those who are interested in the trade union movement should not be taking some steps just now to let us hear their views on this very important question.
One would have imagined that the official Opposition, who pride themselves on supporting the cause of the working man, would have let us have their official views on this matter and not leave it to members of the Independent Labour party and the Conservative party. I can see that the official trade union party are anxious to get as many non-union men into their ranks as possible. I should not think, however, that they are prepared to go the length of prejudicing the rights of the working-man for that purpose. If they have the interests of the working-man at heart, why are they so anxious that only a very small percentage of those men should have the right of appeal? It is true that members
of the British Legion have a right of appeal in addition to the trade unions, but there are many men who are not members of the British Legion or of a trade union. Apart from that, my view is, that, even if these numbers are very small, every working man ought to have the same opportunity in a matter of this sort. For that reason, I would press the Minister to reconsider his decision.

9.59 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The Committee in this matter is faced by a problem of real importance and of considerable difficulty. There are arguments on both sides, and we have to endeavour to reach a just balance. We do not want to see the Umpire flooded out by a series of unrestricted, possibly frivolous, or even perverse appeals. On the other hand, we do not wish to see unequal rights as between one citizen and another. It has always appeared to me a somewhat anomalous provision in our law that if a working-man were a member of a trade union he could enjoy certain rights of appeal, which another man, in exactly similar circumstances in every other respect, would not enjoy. I have had cases from my own constituency of persons who apparently ought to have had access to the Umpire. The court of referees may, I believe, sometimes consist of only one person sitting, and sometimes only two; cases are sometimes dealt with rather hurriedly, and there might be a legitimate right for access to the Umpire. That right would be given if the individual were a member of a trade union, but not if the individual were not such a member. That is an exceedingly strange provision in our law.
We know that these questions are frequently very complicated and difficult. Many of the working people concerned are simple-minded and unversed in questions of law and are unable to present their cases effectively. They frequently do not know the right procedure to pursue. I must say that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in the speech he made a few minutes ago, most powerfully advocated what was clearly a very strong case for the necessity of giving the utmost help to these people and of securing a just consideration of their claims. Nothing has been said, so far as I know, to show
that abuses have in fact occurred, or that there has been any flood of frivolous or perverse appeals to the Umpire. If in certain cases that were in future to arise, I imagine that the Government could devise words to be put in on the Report stage that, where an association was guilty of such practices, it should be deprived of its rights. I do not suppose such a case would arise, but if it did, special measures might be adopted to check any abuse. In general, I think that the House of Commons is above all jealous to secure equality of rights so far as possible for all British citizens, and therefore, if it is a case of doubt, we should decide in favour of an enlarged access rather than a restricted access to the Umpire.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: This is obviously a matter of grave importance, and I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that this House is above all else very slow to inflict anything which might appear to, create an injustice as between man and man. The Committee, however, is wandering a long way from the real point. In the first place, let it be observed there is no alteration in the definiton of an association of employed persons. If it be that the National Unemployed Workers Movement or the British Legion have the right of appeal now, they will still have the right of appeal for their members. It is only the class of persons who are to be regarded as members which is suffering from an alteration, and this sub-section merely provides that a man who is not a member of an association at the critical time when he becomes unemployed is not to be regarded as being entitled to the privileges of membership when the time comes to make an appeal.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The definition we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary is that it must be an association of employed persons to which a man belongs at the time of his unemployment. We are told that the British Legion is such an association, but the National Unemployed Workers' Movement does not organise the men until they become unemployed.

Mr. LINDSAY: If it has any members at all who are employed persons, then, so far as those members are concerned, they
would still have right of access to the Umpire. I had not the privilege of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary, but as I read the Sub-section the position is that whatever is included at the present moment in the definition of an association of employed persons will remain within that definition as a body, though the actual individuals who compose it may be altered. The second point is that there is no real restriction to the right of appeal of an individual. In every case where the court of referees is not unanimous, there is an appeal as of right to every one, whether he be a member of a trade union or not. In the second place, in every case in which the court of referees gives permission there is a right of appeal—as a right. Obviously, we must remember the composition of the court of referees. It consists of an independent chairman, of a workers' representative and of an employers' representative, and we must assume that if there is a case in which the slightest doubt arises on one side or the other leave to appeal is given. It is only in those cases where the court of referees has unanimously decided against a man—chairman, employer and workers' representative unanimously—and decided that it is such a clear case that there is no need for an appeal—it is only in that, which must be a very rare class of case, that this position arises at all.
What is the position, then? First of all, the worker is represented, not in every case by a trade union representative, but by someone on the worker's side who may or may not be a trade union man and who has one of the three votes. That has to be taken into consideration in the granting of leave to appeal. But there are certain people who are in a privileged position because they are members of an association. One must assume, on this side of the Committee as on the other, that these associations are not going to act frivolously and will only put forward a certain number of cases in which there may be considerable difficulty. It is a privilege undoubtedly, but it is a privilege not so much to a particular individual as a privilege granted generally in the interests of workmen. If there is what in the civil courts would be called a "test case," a case which raises some question of principle, that may be put forward by the trade union. A great deal of play has been
made with the statement that we on this side of the Committee are taking our orders from the Trades Union Congress. We are doing nothing of the sort. We are following out the recommendations of the majority of the Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said it was a curious thing that anybody with any knowledge of law or jurisprudence should take this particular course, but I would remind him that the Chairman of the Royal Commission is a very distinguished judge and has a profound knowledge of law and of jurisprudence. We are not taking our orders from the Trades Union Congress, but following what was said by the majority of the Royal Commission, and not even the minority made any comment upon this recommendation. It seems to me that this is a recommendation based upon common sense and justice.
The only comment I would make in conclusion is this. The Committee, in discussing to-night at considerable length this very important question of principle, has had guidance from all sorts of quarters. There is only one quarter from which it has had no guidance, from the Oppositon Front Bench. Obviously there are many hon. Members who, even now, are in considerable doubt, who are wondering where, in this somewhat nice balancing of metaphysical points, the truth lies. I am sure the Committee would be much happier in coming to a decision if we could have some pronouncement from the Opposition Front Bench.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We on these benches have listened with great interest to this new alliance of forces. A superficial case can be made for an alteration of the law. It is always possible to argue on hard cases. We know how often hon. Members opposite have pleaded the case of the poor widow with brewery shares—hard cases; but in all these struggles there is invariably a much larger question behind, and there is a much larger question behind this Amendment. There has been traditional hostility to the trade union movement in this country from all our opponents. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Time after time our opponents have tried to hamstring us in this country and fetter
us by Acts of Parliament, and behind this Amendment there is the old struggle. The trade union movement has won for itself a certain position. It asserts that every member of the working class, whatever the industry in which he is engaged, ought to be a member of his trade union. The trade union movement, and certain other movements of a rather vague and unspecified character, have got a certain amount of privilege—because of what the trade union movement has won—and I say that we are not going to recede from that position. If it comes to a Division I shall ask my hon. Friends reluctant as I shall be to do it, because I am always loath to vote with the Government, and more especially on this Bill, to vote with me, if need be with the Government, to maintain the position which we have achieved. If we are beaten, we are beaten.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: Now at last we know where we are. We know that the Labour party prefer to take an unfair advantage for 4,000,000 trade unionists and to leave 8,000,000 non-unionists in the lurch. We know that the party opposite do not represent the workers of this country, but a small section for whom they are seeking special privileges, and are only carrying out what we suspected—that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench take their orders from the Trades Union Congress and no one else.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was supporting your Government.

Mr. REID: May I say to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that I agree with all he said on the subject.

Mr. MAXTON: I gather that the right hon. Member for Wakefield and the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench are 100 per cent. together in this matter, and am I not right in thinking that the Labour party are accepting their trade union concessions and privileges at the hands of the present National Government?

10.15 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in what he said about alleged hostility to trade union methods. What
I am concerned with, as Minister of Labour, is to ask myself how this Clause has worked. This Clause, about which there has been so much discussion, is Sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act of 1920, under the title, "Determination of Claims." I am going to read that Sub-section:
Where a recommendation has been made under this Section, in the case of any person, by a court of referees, any association of employed persons of which that person is a member, and with the consent of the court, that person may require the Insurance Officer to refer the matter to the Umpire, and the Insurance Officer if so required shall refer the matter to the Umpire accordingly.
All I can tell the Committee is that since 1920, and up to the present day, that Clause has worked very well, and I do not recommend the Committee to take any action which would alter it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) says that the Clause gives an unfair preference to trade unionists. I should like to know whether it is the view of the group of the Liberal party of which he is the leader that that Clause ought to be repealed.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman is not quoting my words.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I hope that I am not misrepresenting them. This very old precedent has been discussed on every occasion when unemployment legislation has been under review. It was discussed at very great length and with great care by the Blanesburgh Committee, which came to the conclusion that the Clause had worked well. It has not worked unfairly.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why alter it now?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It has not worked unfairly before. The reason given by one hon. Member, in regard to the making of appeals—

Mr. BUCHANAN: You are altering it now. Why alter it?

Sir H. BETTERTON: We are discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn). Before the Committee comes to any hurried view on this, I wanted to tell them of the very long history behind the Clause, and I do not recommend the Committee to take any action.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. J. REID: The Government ought not to tell us on, every occasion that certain things have been the law for two, four or ten years. At this stage we are elaborating a new code. We understood, when we undertook the consideration of this Bill, that it was a highly important Bill that would put unemployment insurance upon a new basis, but, from the way in which a number of these Amendments are being treated, it turns out that the Government regard the Bill merely as a consolidation of previous practice. I ask the Government to depart from that attitude, and to let us consider the question on its merits. There are two possible methods of dealing with the matter now under discussion. One is to say that everybody has to have the right of appeal to the Umpire, and then everybody will get it, whether member of a trade union or not. The other method is to say that the Umpire is to be troubled only about questions of principle. In this case the same limitation should be put upon trade unionists as upon non-unionists, and it should be in the Bill that nobody, whether a trade unionist or a non-unionist, is entitled to have his case taken before the Umpire unless somebody decides that a question of principle is involved.
I do not mind which of these two decisions is come to, because there is something to be said for both. If the Minister will make it plain that the right of trade unionists to appeal is to be limited to questions of principle, in the same way as the right of non-unionists be limited to questions of principle, then my objection disappears entirely, and so, I think, will the objection of other hon. Members. We object that trade unionists can appeal whether there is any principle involved or not, whereas non-unionists are limited to questions of principle, and I ask the Minister whether it is impossible before the Report stage—[Interruption.]—I think that non-unionists can appeal if it is certified that a question of principle is involved, although there seems to be some disagreement. If the Minister will place the same limitation upon trade unionists as is placed upon non-unionists, I do not think that anyone in the Committee will say another word. I cannot understand why that limitation is not placed upon trade unionists.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The real issue here is that the Minister has not given us any real guidance as to why the law is being altered. What he has said is that it has worked well, and therefore he must alter it. He says that in 1927 it worked well, that in 1920 it worked well, and that now he is going to alter it. I am prepared to accept the law as it now stands, as it was enacted by the 1924 Labour Government and by the 1930 Labour Government. I want no alteration in the law that they thought fit to have. The simple issue is this: If a man joins a union a day before he is paid off, that man has all the legal protection that you can give him; but the man who joins a union the day after he is paid off has no protection at all. It was considered, quite soundly, that unions and associations like, say, the British Legion would not exercise their right in a flippant fashion. Why take away the right from such organisations in the case of a man who joins the day after he became unemployed? That is what is being done now. The right to appeal is being taken away from these organisations merely because the man has joined when he was unemployed. That is what we are discussing now.

Mr. N. LINDSAY: The point is that there is no distinction between a man who is a member of an organisation and a man who is not a member of an organisation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: My point is that this Amendment does not ask for an extension of the present law, and that, if a man joins, say, the British Legion after he has become unemployed, he should have the same right as if he had joined when he was employed, and should not be deprived of it because he is unemployed. The trade unions will not abuse that position, the British Legion will not abuse it, nor will the National Unemployed Workers' Movement abuse it. I can say without boasting that I have been before the Umpire possibly more times than any man in the House, and, as regards the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, I would say that, while it is quite easy to get up a scare about a body of that kind, the House of Commons is a jury, and, as a jury, must look at things without prejudice. I say that that body has presented its cases with great skill.
It is true, and the Minister knows this, that an unemployed man has the right of appeal, but a court may decide unanimously to allow a man benefit and the insurance officer may decide to appeal against the man. In that case, if he was in a union when he was at work, the union has a right to go and state the case against the insurance officer, but, if the man joined the union a day after he fell out of work, he has, under the Bill, nobody there to state his case against the insurance officer. Is that fair? I say that you would not deal with a criminal in that way, and you have no right to put an unemployed man in a worse position than a criminal. Disallowing a man's benefit is the most severe punishment you can put upon him. A man has often joined an organisation when he knew his case was going to be fought because it was one of principle, but surely he was entitled to do it. Leave the law as it now is and allow these people to be treated properly. A man in an association always has privileges, and this is one of the privileges of a trade union. Why inflict on a man in an association a penalty because of the date of joining?

Sir LUKE THOMPSON: Would the hon. Member extend to a person outside a union such as he has mentioned the same privileges as he has been advocating? There is a great distinction between the Clause and the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: At present an association of employed persons can act for all its members provided—

Sir L. THOMPSON: If a man is not in an association of that kind, would the hon. Member extend the same privilege to him?

Mr. BUCHANAN: If a man knows that his case involves some principle, I say he should have the right to join an association and, having joined—

Sir L. THOMPSON: Do you say he has an equal right of appeal if it is a question of principle?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I say an unemployed person should have an equal right to join an association. It is the only way he can do it. The case is heard in London. Obviously, if he is not in an association, the right of appeal is of no use,
because he cannot come to London to state it. He must join an association if his case is to be heard. The right to join an association should remain with him as long as he is unemployed.

Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES KERR: Does the hon. Member say that a man who is a member of a trade union or the British Legion and a man who is a member of nothing at all, should receive exactly the same treatment?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: We have had a number of arguments from the Conservative benches, and I believe that the question has arisen largely in consequence of the fact that this matter was discussed when most of the Members now present were absent. That is why all the confusion has arisen. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I withdraw, and say some part of it. The only difference which the Amendment makes is that it gives the individual the right of appeal to the Umpire. He can appeal under the Amendment whether he is a member of an association or not.

Sir L. THOMPSON: Under certain conditions.

Mr. BEVAN: Under certain conditions as set out here, but they are the least important part of the Amendment. The important part of the Amendment is the right of the individual to appeal even if he belongs to no association whatever. Hon. Members who have made play with us for defending the trade unions appear to think that they were taking their stand upon that matter upon some question of high principle. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is correct when he says that you are not giving the unemployed man anything. The right of appeal in respect of himself whether he belongs to an association or not is a right which he cannot effectively exercise. Anybody here knows that. A large portion of the argument has been directed to an issue which is not raised in the Amendment at all. It is an argument which may be raised at a subsequent stage. The opportunity was seized, and quite rightly, by hon. Friends below the Gangway to raise the issue in its most acute form.
The change in the law takes away from a man the right of appeal through an association if that association is one
which he joined after he became unemployed. Our hon. Friends seek to ensure that if a man joins an organisation after he becomes unemployed he shall have the right to appeal. Hon. Members in various parts of the Committee claim to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals on the ground that they are taking their stand against trade union tyranny.

Mr. J. REID: I did not say anything about tyranny. I do not believe that trade unions are tyrannous. What I commented upon was the fact that the party opposite prefer to have all the privileges for one-third of the working men and to leave the other two-thirds alone.

Mr. BEVAN: Can he imagine then that the Amendment my hon. Friend was quoting against the right hon. Gentleman with such vehemence, was one which was giving something of value to all those other persons other than the 3,500,000 trade unionists? That is the assumption behind the argument. You are giving nothing of value at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why object to it?"] If hon. Members had been here earlier in the Debate they would have realised that I made my position clear. My point is that in this country at the moment, in many industries which have arisen, in the South of England in particular, and in the North, employers dismiss men who join trade unions, and consequently the law does not protect a man's rights of appeal at the moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] An hon. Member says "No!" We can give chapter and verse to show that there are men at the Morris Works at Oxford who cannot join a union without being dismissed. There are men in the Notts coalfield who dare not join a union.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point raised by the Amendment is whether the same conditions of appeal should belong to trade unionists and non-trade unionists. Whether an individual worker belongs to a trade union or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

Mr. BEVAN: I was dealing with the assumption of hon. Members opposite that they were defending some cardinal principle in defending a right of appeal which in practice cannot be exercised by an unemployed man. If we get the Amendment out of the way we might
approach the major question of what associations should still have the right of appeal to the Umpire.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Minister has practically said that he is in a position which enables him to enter into an alliance with hon. Members opposite, because the Act was brought in in 1920 and it has worked very well ever since. So far as I understand the matter the proportion of trade unionists to non-trade unionists in 1920 was very much higher than it is to-day. If there were so many millions of trade unionists then the proportion is lower to-day. It has been said that there are two non-trade unionists insured to-day as against one trade unionist, which means that the majority of the workers will not have this particular privilege. If that position has arisen, then we as the House of Commons have the right to ask the Government to reconsider the position between now and the Report stage from the point of view not only of the 4,000,000 trade unionists but of the whole of the industrialists I have always taken the view that the Government are doing their best. But here is an entirely new position, and as the Government say that they are trying to meet the position they might close the present discussion if the Minister would say that they would go into the whole of the questions and see whether this particular privilege, however big or little it may be, cannot be extended to the whole. The Minister would be well advised if he would give some assurance to the Committee that he will go into the whole matter once again, which would not delay the passage of the Bill.

Sir H. BETTERTON: After that appeal, although I cannot give any undertaking, I will say that if after further consideration I can make any proposal that will meet what the hon. Member says, I will do so. I will certainly look at the matter again—I have looked at it a good many times—and if I have any reason to alter my mind, I will do so, but I cannot on my present information give any promise.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I hope he will look at it from that point of view. The balance is entirely different to what it
was in 1920. Of course, he cannot give any guarantee, but we accept his statement that he will do his best to meet the wishes of the Committee.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I only intervene for the purpose of trying to make things clear. They are not clear at the moment. From the words the Minister used one would think that the only alternative before us was whether we are in favour of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn), which he unsuccessfully tried to withdraw. That, I think, is not exactly the position. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) tried to intervene in order to strike out Sub-section (2) of the Bill which is an altogether different point. I suggest that we can vote on that, if we desire, when the next Vote is taken, because I take it that the question will be put in the form that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause. If we vote against that we shall in effect be voting for the deletion of Subsection (2) and we need not, therefore, put in these somewhat doubtful words. Many Members of the Committee take the view that they do not want the existing legislation altered in the sense of the Amendment on the Order Paper or in the sense the Minister proposes to alter it in the Bill. He says that it has worked well for years, and I am at a loss to understand why he should make this proposed alteration. I shall take the course of voting against the words standing part, and then vote against any words being inserted.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) has made an appeal to me as to the technical position under the procedure of the Committee. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn) will necessitate leaving out the existing Sub-section (2) of this Clause, in order to move to insert the proposed Sub-section (2), which appears on the Order Paper. It is obvious that hon. Members who do not like the existing Sub-section (2) can advance arguments why it should be left out without being under the necessity of supporting the proposed new Sub-section (2).

10.44 p.m.

Sir L. THOMPSON: I hope the Committee will accept the advice of the
Minister and allow him to consider this matter between now and Report stage. Before the Act of 1930 the decisions on these matters were largely in the hands of the insurance officers. Under the 1930 Act any decision in which there was a doubt was referred to the court of referees. I think it is desirable that we should revert to something like the old procedure. The proposed new Sub-

section alters the position and, therefore, I think the Minister should have an opportunity of looking at the matter again.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 20.

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
[10.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dobble, William
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Donner, P. W.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Albery, Irving James
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Law, Sir Alfred


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)
Lawson, John James


Apsley, Lord
Eden, Robert Anthony
Leckie, J. A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Edwards, Charles
Lees-Jones, John


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Levy, Thomas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Elmley, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Balniel, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Banfield, John William
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lunn, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
MacAndrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Everard, W. Lindsay
McCorguodale, M. S.


Bateman, A. L.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Batey, Joseph
Fox, Sir Gifford
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Ganzonl, Sir John
McEntee, Valentine L.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McKie, John Hamilton


Blindell, James
Gledhill, Gilbert
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Borodale, Viscount
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Bossom, A. C.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Boulton, W. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gower, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buner, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N)
Margeeson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Graves, Marjorie
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Monseil, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Burnett, John George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morgan, Robert H.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cape, Thomas
Harbord, Arthur
Moss, Captain H. J.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hartland, George A.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Munro, Patrick


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
North, Edward T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ormiston, Thomas


Clarry, Reginald George
Hornby, Frank
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Horsbrugh, Florence
Paling, Wilfred


Colman, N. C. D.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Parkinson, John Allen


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Patrick, Colin M.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pearson, William G.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peat, Charles U.


Copeland, Ida
Hurd, Sir Percy
Penny, Sir George


Cranborne, Viscount
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Petherick, M.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jamieson, Douglas
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jenkins, Sir William
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jennings, Roland
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Crossley, A. C.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Price, Gabriel


Dagger, George
John, William
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raikas, Henry V. A. M.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kirkwood, David
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Denville, Alfred
Knight, Holford
Rankin, Robert


Ray, Sir William
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Soper, Richard
Train, John


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Tree, Ronald


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Renwlck, Major, Gustav A.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Rickards, George William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stevenson, Jamas
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ross, Ronald D.
Stones, James
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Runge, Norah Cecil
Storey, Samuel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Weymouth, Viscount


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Strauss, Edward A.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Salt, Edward W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Thompson, Sir Luke
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Seiley, Harry R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Womersley, Walter James


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thorne, William James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D
Thorp, Linton Theodore



Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Titchfield, Major the Marquees of
Commander Southby and Dr.


Somervell, Sir Donald
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Rea, Walter Russell


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Harris, Sir Percy
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Bernays, Robert
Holdsworth, Herbert
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Curry, A. C.
Horobin, Ian M.



Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Malialieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. Maxton and Mr. Buchanan.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.